Trial court order to hand over confidential documents to Jundal ‘unsustainable’: HC

The HC order has paved the way for resumption of the trial before the sessions court in Mumbai.

The HC, while allowing the plea by authorities against sessions court order, observed that the request by Jundal who is facing “serious criminal charges” appeared to be “belated and tactical manoeuvre” by him “lacking any substantive justification.”

A single-judge bench of Justice R N Laddha on Monday passed a verdict allowing a plea by Delhi Police, Ministry of External Affairs, Ministry of Civil Aviation and others challenging the 2018 sessions court order, copy of which was made available on Tuesday.

The Delhi Police’s Special Cell stated that Jundal was apprehended outside Delhi Airport in 2012. However, Jundal, through advocate Yug Mohit Chaudhry maintained that his arrest was unlawful, asserting he was detained while residing in Saudi Arabia and subsequently brought to India.

Following custodial interrogation by the Special Cell, he was transferred to Mumbai Police for investigation into the terror attacks case. Jundal later submitted an application to the trial court requesting specific travel documents of the concerned officers to substantiate his claims, prompting the sessions court to instruct the authorities to provide the requested documents.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the authorities sought quashing of the sessions court order and said that Jundal was produced before the magistrate as per law after he was arrested outside Delhi Airport while he was loitering and the magistrate had granted his police custody.

Justice Laddha in his order observed that the the assertions made by Jundal about his alleged wrongful confinement on June 21, 2012 had “nothing to do with the trial in present offence” and it was related to offence registered by Delhi Police of alleged conspiracy involving the proscribed terrorist organisations Jaish-e-Mohammad and Lashkar-e-Taiba in collusion with Jundal.

“Once it is admitted that the arrest of Jundal is lawful, so far as the present sessions trial is concerned, the trial court ought not to have invested time in passing an absolutely unsustainable order which is nothing but a fishing and roving inquiry at the behest of the accused.”

The HC also observed that once the accused has been placed in judicial custody and was facing trial “with the full opportunity to defend himself,” the place of his arrest, particularly when raised in the midst of the trial for the firsttime, loses any significant relevance to the proceedings.”

The High Court asserted that the place of arrest loses significant relevance to the proceedings once the accused is in lawful judicial custody and has the full opportunity to defend himself, particularly when the issue is raised belatedly during the trial.

The HC also observed that Jundal remained “entirely silent” with respect to his assertions during remand proceedings and subsequently when Mumbai Police sought his custody in connection with the 26/11 terror attacks case.

Therefore, Justice Laddha observed the trial court “completely misdirected itself” by compelling production of documents from authorities. It said the relevant provision of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) does not confer upon an accused, nor empower the Court, to initiate a speculative or exploratory inquiry into the place of arrest, particularly when such inquiry bears no rational nexus to the adjudication of the matter.”