The Supreme Court has recently sought the response from State of Maharashtra to respond to a Special Leave Petition filed by Sameer Kulkarni, one of the accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case. Kulkarni is challenging the trial's validity in the Special National Investigation Agency Court in Mumbai, arguing that it lacks the necessary authorization from the competent authority, as required under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
After reviewing the petitioner's concerns about the competence of the NIA Court to conduct the trial and the absence of a valid sanction under Section 45(2) of the UAPA, the bench comprising Justice A.S. Bopanna and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha issued a notice in the matter.
The court's order stated, "A notice is to be served to the respondent(s), returnable in three weeks. In the meantime, Mr. C. George Thomas, a learned Advocate-on-Record representing the intervening applicant, has accepted the notice on behalf of the applicant, eliminating the need for formal notice issuance. The case will be listed for a hearing after four weeks, and any counter affidavit should be filed within that time.
Case Brief -
In September 2008, a tragic event unfolded in the city of Malegaon, Maharashtra. On the evening of September 29, 2008, an explosive device, concealed on a motorcycle, detonated near a religious shrine. This devastating incident resulted in the loss of six lives and left 101 individuals injured. Sameer Sharad Kulkrani, the petitioner and one of the accused in connection with the bombing, was apprehended on charges related to Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), as well as Section 120B in conjunction with Sections 302, 307, 324, 326, 427, and 153A of the Indian Penal Code, in addition to Sections 3, 4, 5, and 6 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908.
The Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed before the Supreme Court contests the decision of the Bombay High Court. The High Court had previously dismissed the petitioner's appeal, in which they questioned the court's competency to preside over the trial. Furthermore, the High Court had also turned down the petitioner's challenge regarding the absence of a valid sanction granted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The SLP highlights that on April 1, 2011, the Central Government entrusted the investigation to the NIA. However, the NIA filed the chargesheet without obtaining the required sanction from the Central Government as mandated by Section 45(2) of the UAPA. Additionally, it points out that the trial is not being conducted by a Court established by the Central Government under Section 11 of the NIA Act, but rather, it is being tried by a Court established by the State Government under Section 22 of the NIA Act.
"In the absence of sanction to prosecute, accorded by the competent authority under UAPA, the Petitioner cannot be tried for the charges levelled against him and therefore the courts below have committed an error apparent on the face of the record and failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in them by law", reads the SLP.
Furthermore, it has been argued that the Central Government, on the grounds that the offenses in question are related to the security of the state, directed the NIA to take over the investigation of these cases. Building on these decisions, the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) asserts that it is essential for the trial to be conducted by a Special Court established by the Central Government under Section 13 of the NIA Act. The petitioner also contends that the case should be prosecuted by a public prosecutor appointed by the Central Government under Section 15 of the same act.
Consequently, the petitioner is seeking an ex-parte stay on the proceedings of the Special NIA Case and is requesting a directive for the Trial Court to first address the matter of granting a valid sanction for prosecution, as mandated by Section 45(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), before proceeding with the ongoing trial before the Special Court. The Court has ordered the case to be listed for a hearing after a period of four weeks.
Case Title: Sameer Sharad Kulkarni v. the State of Maharashtra
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy