JM Road blasts case: Mumbai court rejects guilty plea of accused in jail for over 12 years, says plea does not appear voluntary

“The aspect of such long incarceration is being put forth as a point of bargaining on the point of quantum of sentence which negates the plea of being guilty on his part,” Special judge Shayana Patil said in the order on April 21, adding that the plea seeks leniency in punishment and cannot be accepted. It said the application is like plea bargaining, where an accused can negotiate with the prosecution for a lesser punishment in lieu of accepting the guilt.

“…the plea of being guilty raised by the accused is not specific and clear, and on the contrary, appears to be tainted by his intention to seek lesser punishment and it is also inspired as a result of long incarceration. As such, the plea does not appear to be voluntary. Moresoever, it is in respect of serious offences. Under such circumstances, the plea of guilty raised by the accused Imran Khan cannot be accepted,” the order stated.

A provision in criminal law permits an accused to admit guilt and be convicted without a full trial. The court has to record the plea “as nearly as possible in the words used by the accused” and then, using its discretion, convict the accused.

The trial in the case began only last year, with most of the accused behind bars as undertrials since 2012. One of the accused, Imran Khan, recently submitted an application seeking to plead guilty, stating that during his long incarceration, he realised his mistakes and was choosing to voluntarily and unconditionally plead guilty. He requested the court to award him a sentence in the interest of the well-being of his family and himself, with a chance at rehabilitation.

The court had given Khan time to reflect on the plea. It informed him about the seriousness of the offences and that he could face a maximum punishment of life imprisonment. Khan submitted that he had been in jail for more than 12 years and also cited orders where the accused were dealt with leniency on pleading guilty.

The court also said that the charges faced by the accused in the case include those under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA). It said that, therefore, an application pleading guilty would require the accused to be specific about the acts committed by him under these laws. The court also considered that previous such pleas by the accused in the case were rejected.