Bail to man jailed for 12 yrs over role in ’08 Delhi blasts

“Courts should not play coroner and attend to legal or constitutional rights only after they are dead. Instead, we must play doctor, and save such rights from demise before they are extinguished. Courts should proactively step in to protect such rights from being stifled and buried,” a bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani said.

The Delhi high court on Wednesday granted bail to a man who was lodged in the jail for the last 12 years for his alleged role in the 2008 Delhi serial blasts, saying that courts must attend to the legal or constitutional rights of people before they are dead.

The court said that Mohammad Hakim’s incarceration of more than 12 years as an under-trial “would certainly qualify as a long enough period for the system to acknowledge that his right to speedy trial continues to be defeated”. (HT File Photo)

“Courts should not play coroner and attend to legal or constitutional rights only after they are dead. Instead, we must play doctor, and save such rights from demise before they are extinguished. Courts should proactively step in to protect such rights from being stifled and buried,” a bench of justices Siddharth Mridul and Anup J Bhambhani said.

“If equity calls upon affected persons to be vigilant to protect their rights, then surely the courts must also be vigilant, and, to quote the Supreme Court, act as sentinels on the qui vive when it comes to protecting constitutional and legal rights,” the bench added.

The court said that Mohammad Hakim’s incarceration of more than 12 years as an under-trial “would certainly qualify as a long enough period for the system to acknowledge that his right to speedy trial continues to be defeated”.

Hakim was accused of carrying cycle ball-bearings from Lucknow to Delhi that, according to the police, were subsequently used to make IEDs used in the 2008 Delhi serial blasts. The case is at the stage of examination of the prosecution witness.

The accused, in custody since February 2009, approached the high court in appeal against a trial court order rejecting his bail application in the criminal case under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The prosecution contended that the alleged offences were grave and heinous.

It was stated terrorist outfit Indian Mujahideen had taken the responsibility for the serial bomb blasts in different places in Delhi on September 13, 2008 that left 26 people dead and 135 injured.

In its judgment, the court noted that despite 256 witnesses being examined over 12 years, 60 prosecution witness were still to be examined.

The high court bench observed that even if it is assumed that the accused would be awarded a life sentence after the completion of the trial, he has already undergone more than half the sentence he may eventually face.

The court also refused to assume that Hakim might be awarded capital punishment, saying that the death sentence was for “rarest of rare” cases and could not be treated as the “default punishment”.

“In the present case, if the State plans to seek the capital sentence for the appellant, it is therefore all the more necessary that the appellant be afforded a speedy trial; failing which, the appellant deserves at least to be given back his liberty after more than 12 long years of imprisonment as an undertrial, since it cannot be ignored that as of now, the appellant has undergone punishment for more than a decade of his life, for an alleged offence for which he has not yet been found guilty,” the court said.

Noting that the accused was enrolled in a B.Tech (Biotechnology) degree course at the Integral University, Lucknow for the 2008-2009 sessions, the court asked, “In the event of acquittal, how would the State compensate the appellant for having been robbed of what may have been the most productive and defining decade of his life?”

The court also said that though the prosecution stressed that Hakim has been charged with the offence of criminal conspiracy to wage war against the government of India, no particular allegation has been pointed out in the charge sheet or in the order of charges framing that could relate to the offences under Sections 121 or 121A IPC.

While granting him release, subject to a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000 with two local sureties of the same amount from family members, the court said that the accused shall surrender his passport, not travel outside the country without prior permission, keep his cell phone active, and not contact witnesses or tamper with evidence.