GULZAR AHMED AZMI & ANR Vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Bench: T.S. THAKUR,FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
Case number: Writ Petition (crl.) 19 of 2012
Page 1
Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 19 OF 2012
Gulzar Ahmed Azmi & Anr. …Petitioners
VERSUS
Union of India & Ors. …Respondents
O R D E R
Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla, J.
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under
Article 32 read with Article 21 of the Constitution
ostensibly in public interest in which the petitioners pray
for a Writ of Mandamus for constitution of a Committee
to make further investigation of all the bomb blasts cases
which have taken place since 2002.
2. When we examine the relief prayed for by the petitioners,
we find that there are as many as six substantive prayers
made by them including constitution of a Committee
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 1 of 9
Page 2
headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court along
with team of competent officers and experts to make
further investigation of all bomb blasts cases which have
taken place since 2002 onwards. The prayer specifically
mentions a list by way of Annexure P-45 wherein the
details have been mentioned in order to monitor the
investigation to be ordered while granting any relief in the
writ petition.
3. The further prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to
the respondents to initiate criminal or departmental
action against the erring police officers for having
implicated alleged innocent Muslim boys by fabricating
false evidence.
4. The third prayer in the writ petition is for a direction to
the respondents to initiate criminal or departmental
action against the officers of Central and State
Intelligence Agencies, who furnished wrong inputs to the
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 2 of 9
Page 3
State Police and thereby pressurised them to arrest
innocent Muslim boys.
5. In the fourth prayer the petitioners prayed for a direction
to the respondents to make the contents of the laptops,
recovered from Lt. Col. Purohit and Mahant Dayanand
Pandey, public and thereafter make an inquiry for taking
action against the culprits who were involved in anti-
national terror activities.
6. In the fifth prayer they seek for a direction to the first
respondent for taking action against communal
organisations like RSS, VHP and their allied forums who
alleged to have indulged in bomb blasts cases and other
terror related activities. In the last prayer they seek for a
direction to release on bail the detenus arrested in bomb
blasts cases referred to in Annexure P-45 against whom
there is no clinching or conclusive evidence.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 3 of 9
Page 4
7. To sum-up the grievance of the petitioners, as per the
averments contained in the petition, is that the real
culprits are being shielded from taking any action against
them, while innocent Muslim boys have been roped in
various bomb blasts cases throughout the country since
the year 2002 and in order to unearth the said factor,
this Court should direct the first respondent to constitute
a Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme
Court who should be assisted with the team of officers
having competent investigation skills along with other
experts.
8. At the very outset, we wish to state that if the prayer of
the petitioners were to be accepted for whatever grounds
stated in the petition and any such Committee is directed
to be constituted that will only result in making a roving
inquiry into the various criminal proceedings so far
lodged connected with cases of bomb blasts all over the
country. We are not, therefore, inclined to countenance
such a wide prayer asked for in this writ petition.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 4 of 9
Page 5
9. Since criminal cases registered in connection with various
incidents are either pending trial before the competent
jurisdictional courts or being investigated by the
jurisdictional police, it is premature to say whether any
and if so which of the accused is innocent or has been
falsely implicated. If anyone is falsely roped in any
offence either under the provisions of Indian Penal Code
or under any other special enactments, by way of
criminal proceeding, it is needless to state that there are
enough safeguards provided under the various laws and
under the criminal law jurisprudence, to protect the
interest of any such person claiming himself to be
innocent and demonstrate before the concerned Fora that
he has been falsely implicated in any offence. Therefore, it
will be for the concerned individual against whom any
criminal proceeding is lodged to work out his remedy. For
instance, if in any particular criminal case, one wishes to
seek for further investigation under Section 173 (8) of the
Cr.P.C. the same can always be effected even after the
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 5 of 9
Page 6
filing of the final report. Such a power existing with the
Investigating Officer, having been statutorily provided, it
will be a futile exercise if such a statutory exercise is to be
entrusted with a supernumerary body created under the
head of a retired Judge of the Supreme Court along with
other team of officers and experts. When the time tested
Criminal Procedure Code and other statutory provisions
are working in the field providing for such well laid down
procedure to be followed in the matter of regulating such
criminal proceedings, the granting of the petitioners’
prayer would amount to creating a parallel body without
any statutory sanction and to function only under some
directions of this Court which would be lacking in very
many procedural details and will ultimately result in utter
chaos and confusion in dealing with the criminal
proceedings which have already been lodged and
progressing before various criminal courts.
10. We are not, therefore, inclined to consider such a wide
prayer applied for by the petitioners for constitution of a
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 6 of 9
Page 7
special Committee. The other directions prayed for by the
petitioners will also only result in interfering with the
already pending proceedings in which the concerned
individuals who have been arrayed as accused or
otherwise can seek for appropriate relief either for further
investigation or for their discharge or in the event of any
other adverse orders passed by the concerned Court,
approach the higher fora for redressal of their grievances.
There are various levels of Appellate Fora to examine the
manner in which the proceedings are being pursued
before the Courts wherein such criminal proceedings
have already been lodged or in the event of any adverse
orders having been passed, examine the correctness of
such orders in order to grant appropriate relief or to
confirm such decisions taken by the lower fora.
11. It will be for the concerned individuals who face such
criminal proceedings to work out their remedy in the
manner known to law. Even if such individuals are not in
a position to seek for any appropriate legal assistance on
their own, having regard to the set up of Legal Service
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 7 of 9
Page 8
Authority and its effective functioning, in the nook and
corner of the country, there should be no dearth of legal
assistance for those affected persons to seek for such
legal aid free of cost. Therefore, when there is no dearth
for seeking legal assistance free of cost, on that score as
well it cannot be held that the concerned individuals will
be left with no remedy. In fact, it is now well known that
on mere asking of the concerned presiding officer, those
involved in such criminal proceedings are being offered
free legal aid of high calibre in order to ensure that no
innocent person is being punished for want of proper
legal assistance.
12. Having regard to the above factors, we do not find any
scope to entertain this writ petition and leave it open for
the concerned parties against whom any criminal
proceeding is lodged to work out their remedies in the
appropriate manner before the appropriate forum in
accordance with law. The writ petition fails and the same
is dismissed.
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 8 of 9
Page 9
…..……….……………………….....J. [T.S. Thakur]
……………………………………………J.
[Fakkir Mohamed Ibrahim Kalifulla]
New Delhi; October 11, 2012
Writ Petition (Crl.) No.19 of 2012 9 of 9