With a ‘heavy heart’, Allahabad HC acquits man in 1996 Ghaziabad blast case: ‘Police confessions not admissible after lapse of TADA’

“We are recording acquittal in this case with a heavy heart, as the case is of such propensity that it shocked the conscience of the society as 18 innocent persons lost their lives in the terrorist plot. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges that the appellant conspired to plant a bomb along with the co-accused to create a bomb explosion in the bus, which resulted in a large number of loss of lives and injuries to the passengers and damage to public property,” the Bench said in its order.

Setting aside the conviction of Ilyas, the High Court said the “only evidence”, based on which the trial court convicted him, was a “confessional statement of the appellant (Ilyas) that was recorded by the police in the presence of a police officer who arrested him from his temporary residence at Ludhiana”.

Ilyas is currently lodged in jail.

Following the blast, the UP Police had arrested Ilyas, who was then living in Ludhiana. His statement was recorded by the investigating officer in the presence of his father and brother on June 8, 1997, on an audio cassette, in which he allegedly admitted that he, along with Abdul Mateen, had planted a bomb in a bus in Delhi before it left for Roorkie. The police also said that they had recovered a diary and rail tickets.

The police had said that Abdul Mateen, a citizen of Pakistan, had conspired with Ilyas to carry out the blast. Mateen, according to the police, was later arrested by the Rajasthan Police under the Foreigners Act, as he had entered India without proper immigration papers.

Police had arrested one Tasleem, a resident of Muzaffarnagar, in January 1997. According to police, Tasleem’s brother Saleem Kari, who taught Arabic in Mirpur in Jammu and Kashmir, had influenced the two with “communal teachings”.

“In the present.. FIR, Section 3/4 of Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was invoked inter- alia the provisions of the IPC, Explosive Substances Act against the accused persons… However, the TADA Act was allowed to lapse in 1995 due to allegations of misuse, and as the present offence was registered on  27.04.1996 ie after 1995 when provisions of TADA Act were lifted during the investigation. Therefore, in the present case, the confession recorded by the Senior Police Officer… at the time of investigation will not be permitted to be proved under the law due to the embargo created by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The provision of Section 15 TADA, which allows admissibility of a confession recorded by a Senior Police Officer, is not applicable to the present case,” the court stated in its order.

The High Court also noted that no chargesheet was filed against Ilyas for charges under the TADA Act, and the railway tickets and diary of Ilyas could not point to his involvement in the blast.

“The mere fact that three railway tickets recovered from the appellant (Ilyas)… which showed that he travelled from Muzaffarnagar to Jammu Tawi  twice and from Muzaffarnagar to Ludhiana at one point of time prior to the incident, cannot form the basis that he was involved in the present offence. Similarly, in the diary, recovered from the possession of the appellant (Ilyas), the name and description of Salim Kari, a resident of Kupwara, Jammu & Kashmir, and brother of co-accused Tasleem, is hardly sufficient to connect the appellant with the offence. Consequently, after excluding the confessional statement of the appellant (Ilyas) recorded by the investigating officer… no incriminating material appears against the appellant which could prove his complicity in the offence,” the court said, setting aside the trial court’s conviction.

On April 15, 2013, the trial court in Ghaziabad had convicted Ilyas and Mateen of murder, criminal conspiracy, and under the Explosive Substances Act. The trial court had convicted Liyas and Mateen but acquitted Tasleem.