The Rajasthan High Court has decided to grant conditional bail to Mohammed Azmi, who is one of the individuals accused in the 2008 Jaipur serial bomb blasts. This decision was made in light of the extended period of incarceration despite being acquitted in similar FIRs.

The Jaipur bomb blasts occurred on May 13, 2008, in a coordinated manner across multiple locations in the city, all happening within a few minutes. This tragic incident led to 71 casualties and numerous minor and major injuries to the population. Out of the nine First Information Reports (FIRs) filed in connection with the bombings, Mohammed Azmi sought bail specifically in the FIR related to the recovery of a live bomb, which was subsequently neutralized by the police.

The petitioner was remanded in connection with the mentioned FIR on December 25, 2019. It's important to note that the petitioner had already been in jail since 2009 in other cases prior to this remand. Thereafter In March, the Rajasthan High Court acquitted all four convicts in the case, including Azmi, who had been initially sentenced to death by the trial court. 

In the present case, the Additional Advocate General, Rajesh Maharshi, contended that there is substantial evidence indicating that the actions of the petitioner/accused can be interpreted as a 'conspiracy to commit acts of terrorism with the intent to disrupt the nation's law, order, and security.' AAG also pointed out that Section 43 D (5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 includes a specific provision that discourages the court from scrutinizing the evidence on record or engaging in a 'mini-trial' when assessing a bail application. 

Conversely, the petitioner's counsel, Advocate Syed Sadat Ali, put forward the argument that Mohammed Azmi has spent 14 years in custody since 2009. The counsel further maintained that the accused had even been granted bail by the Supreme Court in the Special Leave Petition filed against his acquittal by the High Court.

Regarding the impact of Section 43(D)(5) of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) on the granting of bail, the single-judge bench examined the Supreme Court's decision in the case of Union of India (UOI) v. K.A. Najeeb. In this case, the apex court emphasized that while the courts are expected to respect the legislative policy against granting bail, the strictness of such provisions may be relaxed when there is no reasonable expectation of the trial being completed within a reasonable time, and the period of incarceration already served has exceeded a significant portion of the prescribed sentence. The court also noted that the bail restrictions in Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA Act are relatively less stringent compared to those in Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.

Shortly thereafter, the court also examined the scope of the identical provision, Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act. It referenced the case of Rabi Prakash v. The State of Odisha, in which the Supreme Court reiterated that 'conditional liberty will override the statutory restrictions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act' in cases of prolonged incarceration.

In light of this perspective, Justice Birendra Kumar granted the bail application filed by Mohammed Azmi, permitting the release upon the provision of a bail bond worth Rs One Lakh, in addition to two sureties each of the same amount.

Case: Mohammed Sarvar Azmi v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9815/2023. 

Read/Download Order: Mohammad Azmi Vs. The State of Rajasthan