The Supreme Court on Friday ordered the release on bail of journalist Sayed Mohammad Ahmed Kazmi, arrested on March 7 in connection with the explosion in the vehicle carrying the wife of an Israel Embassy diplomat in the capital on February 13.
He was remanded in custody under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A three-judge Bench of Chief Justice Altamas Kabir and Justices S.S. Nijjar and J. Chelameswar granted bail to Kazmi, subject to the satisfaction of the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (CMM) “upon such conditions as may be deemed fit and proper, including surrender of passport, reporting to the local police station, and not leaving the city limits where the appellant would be residing without the leave of the Court so as to ensure his presence at the time of the trial.”
The Bench noted that on June 2, he was produced before the CMM since his 90 days’ period of custody was to expire the next day. The CMM extended the period of investigation and the custody of the appellant by another 90 days. On appeal against this remand order, the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ)held that it was only the Sessions Court and not the CMM who had the competence to even extend the judicial custody of the accused and to entertain cases of such nature, and held the remand illegal.
Writing the judgment, Justice Kabir said, “There is no denying the fact that on July 17 when the ASJ held the custody of the appellant illegal, an application for grant of statutory bail was filed by the appellant. Instead of hearing the application, the CMM adjourned the same till the next day when the Public Prosecutor filed an application for extension of the period of custody and investigation. On July 20, the CMM extended the time of investigation and the custody of the appellant for a further period of 90 days with retrospective effect from June 2.”
The Bench said, “Not only is the retrospectivity of the CMM’s order untenable, it could also defeat the statutory right which had accrued to the appellant on the expiry of 90 days from the date when he was taken into custody. We are unable to appreciate the procedure adopted by the CMM, which has been endorsed by the High Court.”
The Bench said, “We are of the view that the appellant acquired the right for grant of statutory bail on July 17, when his custody was held to be illegal by the ASJ, since his application for statutory bail was pending at the time when the application for extension of time for continuing the investigation was filed by the prosecution. In our view, the right of the appellant to be granted statutory bail remained unaffected by the subsequent application and both the CMM and the High Court erred in holding otherwise.”
The Bench allowed the appeal and set aside the CMM’s order and the orders of the High Court upholding the CMM’s order and ordered his release on bail.
Published - October 19, 2012 11:38 pm IST
