((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.240 OF 2009 Santosh Angre Applicant versus The State of Maharashta Respondent S.S.Punalakar for applicant. Rajesh More, APP for State. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 04th May 2009 PC : 1. The submissions of the learned counsel for the applicant were heard on Friday. The applicant is accused no.4 who along with other five accused have been charged with commission of offence under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code read with section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as amended by the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Amendment Act, 2004 punishable under sections 16, 18 and 23 of the said Act read with section 307 read with sections 34, 201, 419, 465 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The allegation against the applicant and other accused is that they entered into a criminal conspiracy from January 2008 to June 2008 with the common object and with an ((-2-)) intention to strike terror in the section of people by using bombs and other explosive substances. The allegation is that on 20th February 2008 they did commit an explosion by means of a bomb at Cineraj Cinema at Panvel. The allegation is that they planted a bomb at Vishnudas Bhave Auditorium, at Vashi. It is alleged that on 4th June 2008 they planted a bomb at Ram Ganesh Gadkari Auditorium at Thane. The said bomb exploded at about 1610 hours. The allegation against the accused nos.1 to 4 is that during the period January 2008 to June 2008 they intended to strike terror in the minds of viewers of Marathi Play "Aamhi Pachpute" and a film "Jodha-Akbar" committed explosions by using explosive substances and IEDs in such a manner as to cause or likely to cause death or injuries to the persons as also loss or damage or destruction of property and thereby committed terrorist acts on 20.2.2008, 31.5.2008 and 4.6.2008 resulting into injuries of eight persons and damaged to theatre by the name Ram Ganesh Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The allegation against the accused 1 to 4 is that during the period January 2008 to June 2008 they aided and abetted each other by advocating, inciting and knowingly facilitating ((-3-)) the commission of terrorist acts and/or act preparatory to the commission of terrorist acts by committing explositions at Cine Raj Cinema Panvel, at Vishnudas Bhave Audiotorium, Vashi and at Ram Ganesh Gadkari Rangayatan, Thane. The allegation is that the accused nos.1 to 3 and the applicant during the period from January 2008 to June 2008 procured explosives like Geletin Sticks, /Detonators, firearms namely country made revolver and live cartridges, wit-Ammonium Nitrate, Nitrite, Petroleum Hydrocarbon Oil and Aluminium etc. and utilized the same for causing explosions in the aforesaid cases. 3. An application for discharge was made by the present applicant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by the impugned order dated 15th January 2009 rejected the said application. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that there is no material on record to connect the applicant with the offence save and except the statements of Vilas Raghunath recorded on 24th July 2008 and 18th August 2008. He stated that at highest the said statements show the presence of the applicant ((-4-)) in the canteen in Ram Ganesh Gadkari Rangayatan, at Thane. He submitted that mere suspicion was not sufficient to proceed against the applicant. He submitted that as far as sanction to prosecute granted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is concerned, it is not the case of the applicant that Central Government has granted the sanction. Therefore, the sanction is illegal. He submitted that the statements of Vilas Raghunath were belatedly recorded. His submission is that mere suspicion is not sufficient to charge the applicant. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions. As far as issue of sanction is concerned, the same will have to be canvassed after the evidence is adduced by the prosecution. The issue of legality and validity of sanction will have to be decided at appropriate stage. As far as offence under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, in paragraph no.4 of the impugned order, the learned Sessions Judge has observed thus:- "4. ... ... No doubt, facts of the prosecution case discloses that when the ((-5-)) accused persons were involved in putting the alleged explosives in the campus of theatre and at alleged places, then at that time they had no intention to kill someone or attempted to kill any specific person. But it is to be noted that the knowledge was attributed to the accused that by explosion of the explosives danger to the life of persons thereby was bound to occur. Further the intention is said to be presumed to be attributed to the accused that when they were involved in putting the explosives at certain places where large public had accessed. Then in that case, it is to be presumed that accused were intending to cause harm to the life of mass from public. This fact itself supports for framing charge u/s 307 of IPC. Therefore, framing of charge u/s 307 of IPC is necessary." 6. The allegation against the applicant is of involvement in the conspiracy. There is evidence of the presence of the applicant in the canteen premises of Ram Ganesh Gadkari Rangayatan, at Thane alongwith another accused. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is no material to proceed against the applicant. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge was justified in rejecting the application for discharge. 7. Hence, no case for interference is made out. The application is rejected. It is, however, made clear that notwithstanding the impugned order, the issue regarding legality and validity of the sanction is kept open which ((-6-)) can be agitated at appropriate stage. All contentions of the parties on merits are kept open. (A.S.OKA, J.)