Rajasthan High Court expresses its Surprise in Jaipur Blasts Case

Dated: March 01, 2021

                                                                                                                                                           - By Megha Bhatia

The saga of Shahbaz Ahmad, who was refused release amid his acquittal in cases linked to the 2008 Jaipur bombings, makes a mockery of our Constitution’s coveted constitutional right to personal liberty.

The Rajasthan High Court was surprised to find that Shahbaz Ahmad (48), who had been in jail since 2008, had been arrested again in a case linked to the Jaipur bombings, despite being found not guilty in eight other similar cases.

A Special Court in Jaipur appointed to prosecute Jaipur blast cases acquitted Ahmad in eight cases on December 18, 2019, claiming the prosecution “totally failed” to prove the charges against him. Since finding four other convicted persons guilty of the 2008 bombings that killed 71 people and wounded over 200, the Special Court sentenced them to death.

The Prosecution’s only claim tying Ahmad, a resident of Lucknow, to the blasts was that he sent an email on behalf of the Indian Mujahideen to TV stations about the incident from a cyber cafe. The Trial Court, on the other hand, dismissed the prosecution’s argument against Ahmad, ruling that he had no links to the other defendants and that no e-mail was found to have been sent by him.

On December 25, 2019, exactly one week after the acquittal orders, the Rajasthan police reported Ahmad’s arrest in another FIR lodged in 2008 in connection with the blasts - which had been inactive for the whole period without a charge sheet.

The police lodged a charge sheet in this FIR in June 2020. Ahmad filed an appeal before the trial court seeking dismissal of the case based on ‘double jeopardy’ under Article 20(2)Section 300 CrPC, and Section 71 IPC, arguing that the charges were the same and similar to those of other cases in which he was convicted after trial.

He filed for daily bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure when the application was pending. Bail was refused by the Sessions Court. He moved to the High Court after that.

High Court expresses surprise 

The fact that Ahmad was not arrested in the case for 12 years, despite being in custody the entire time, surprised the High Court.

“It is indeed surprising that when the petitioner was languishing in jail (I am using the term “languishing” because petitioner remained in custody for twelve years and ultimately found not guilty in all these cases) as to why the petitioner was not arrested in this case when he remained in custody for twelve years”, a single bench of Justice Pankaj Bhandari observed while granting him bail in the case 

The Additional Advocate General was “clueless” when the bench asked why Ahmad was not arrested in the FIR during his 12 years in custody in the other cases, according to the bail order.

“Learned Additional Advocate General was not in a position to apprise the Court as to why petitioner has been arrested in the present F.I.R. when he was held not guilty in eight similar FIRs”, the High Court observed in the order. 

Advocates Mujahid Ahmed and Nishant Vyas, Ahmad’s lawyers, argued that the arrest had no legal basis and was only made to keep him in custody longer.

“Considering the contentions put forth by counsel for the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the present FIR is akin to the eight F.I.Rs. in which the petitioner has been found not guilty, I deem it proper to allow the bail application”, the High Court said. 

The High Court granted him bail on the condition that he provides a one-lakh rupee personal bond and two sureties in the sum of Rs 50,000 each. As a result, the Court cleared the way for Ahmad to reunite with his wife and three children, from whom he had been separated by the State for more than 12 years without being found guilty.

Supreme Court intervention 

To get a full picture of the story, it’s important to mention the Supreme Court’s intervention last month in relation to another FIR lodged against Ahmad in 2019.

An FIR was lodged charging that Ahmad attacked prison officers in order to discourage them from undertaking a search. Ahmad, on the other hand, said that he was the one who was tortured in prison.

The Rajasthan High Court denied him bail on January 27, 2020. After that, he goes to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled on January 8, 2021, that the unusual facts and circumstances of the case, including the fact that the Plaintiff had sustained 11 injuries while in detention, warranted his release on bail.

Not satisfied with that, the SC bench of Justices NV Ramana, Surya Kant, and Aniruddha Bose ordered the State Government to launch a fact-finding inquiry into Aman’s report of prison brutality by a Senior IAS Officer of the State cadre, and to take appropriate action against any jail/police officers/officials found guilty in the inquiry.

Recently, the Supreme Court in the case Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. Union India had observed that “deprivation of liberty even for a single day is a day too many” and that “criminal law should not become a weapon for selective harassment of citizens.” 

Cases like Shahbaz Ahmad, on the other hand, demonstrate that an ordinary citizen will have to fight long and difficult legal battles to secure the fundamental freedom of person liberty.


Top Stories