CASE ANALYSIS – MIRJA HIMAYAT BEIG V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 2024 1 HCC (BOM) 22

INTRODUCTION

The case of Mirza Himayat Beig v. State of Maharashtra (2024) centers on a criminal appeal against Beig’s conviction and death sentence in a major blast case. He was originally found guilty under serious charges, including terrorism laws. However, when the Bombay High Court reviewed the case, it found several flaws in the investigation and inconsistencies in the evidence presented. The court raised concerns about how the trial was conducted and ultimately acquitted Beig, saying there wasn’t enough reliable proof to hold him guilty. This judgment reinforced a crucial message: that justice must be rooted in fairness, proper procedure, and solid evidence—especially in cases involving a person’s life and liberty.

FACTS OF THE CASE 

1. After the first accused (A1), Shaikh Lal Baba, was arrested during the night of 7th–8th September 2010, the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) recovered 700 grams of RDX, four detonators, mobile phones, and documents like residential certificates and voter ID cards from a flat, based on information given by A1. This recovery was officially recorded through a panchanama (a legal document noting the recovery of evidence).
2. About a month later, on 7th October 2010, the ATS requested custody of the appellant, Mirza Himayat Beig, who was already in judicial custody in a separate case in Mumbai. Notably, no incriminating material was ever found from or through Beig. Despite this, a chargesheet was filed against him and others on 4th December 2010 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Nashik. Since the case involved charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), it was transferred to the Special ATS Court in Nashik.
3. As for Beig, the ATS had recorded the statements of two witnesses shortly before his arrest—on 24th September and 3rd October 2010. These witnesses claimed that Beig had spoken to them back in December 2006, allegedly encouraging them to join the terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LET). However, it is important to note that neither of the witnesses ever acted on that alleged incitement, nor did they report it until after A1’s arrest. Moreover, LET was officially declared a terrorist organisation only in December 2008—two years after the supposed meeting took place.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1. Whether, With the agreement of both sides, the appeal could be heard and decided immediately was considered by the court.
2. In this appeal, the appellant—Mirza Himayat Beig—challenged the order passed on 4th October 2021 by the District and Additional Sessions Judge in Nashik. In that order, the judge had rejected his bail application (Exhibit 406) in Sessions Case No. 192 of 2010. Beig, therefore, requested the High Court to set aside that decision and grant him bail.

3. After going through the case papers, the court noted that Beig and other co-accused were arrested in connection with Crime Report No. 21 of 2010, registered by the ATS Mumbai.

JUDGEMENT

“The court made it clear that it was looking at the appeal by carefully considering both the facts of the case and the legal issues involved. After a detailed review of the evidence, relevant laws, and past judgments, it reached its final conclusions.”

1. The Court chose to grant bail to Mirza Himayat Baig after closely considering the circumstances of his case. It took note of the extended delay in the trial proceedings and acknowledged that such prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial was unjust. This delay, along with the overall facts, convinced the Court that granting him bail was appropriate.

2. The Court observed that keeping an accused in jail for over 13 years without completing the trial is a serious violation of Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. It emphasised that such delay undermines the fundamental right to a fair and speedy trial.

3.The judges also noted that no incriminating material or evidence was recovered directly from the appellant during the investigation, despite the serious allegations against him.

4. Although the charges are grave and involve offences under the IPC, UAPA, and other Acts, the Court took note of the fact that more than 30 prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined, indicating that the trial is far from over.

5.Considering all these factors, the Court allowed the appeal and granted bail. However, it imposed strict conditions to ensure that the appellant does not misuse the liberty—such as not tampering with evidence, regularly reporting to the authorities, and attending court on all dates unless specifically exempted.

REASONING

1. The court began by hearing arguments from both sides. One of the key pieces of evidence was the statement of the second witness, recorded on 3rd October 2010. This statement was largely similar to the first witness’s. The second witness mentioned that about a month after a meeting in 2006, he came to know that accused A1 had gone to Qatar. He also claimed that the appellant (Beig) told him that A1 was in contact with him while in Qatar and that Fayyaz Kagzi was going to help train A1. The witness added that he advised Beig not to get involved in such activities and then cut off all contact with him.
2. However, the court noted that this was the only evidence directly linked to Beig. There were no documents, materials, or recoveries connecting him to any terrorist act. Even the group photograph presented by the prosecution was from 2003 — taken long before the alleged incidents — and only showed Beig with some of the co-accused. Importantly, while the prosecution claimed that A1 had gone to Qatar, there was nothing to show that A1 ever went to Pakistan (where the alleged training was supposed to happen).
3. The court acknowledged that the charges against Beig were serious and posed a threat to public safety. Had this been an early stage of investigation, they might have rejected his bail outright. But given that Beig had already spent over 13 years in custody, and the trial was nowhere near completion, the High Court felt compelled to consider bail as a reasonable option.
4. The judgment also noted a legal distinction: under the UAPA, the bail conditions are less strict than under the NDPS Act. In UAPA cases, the court doesn’t have to be satisfied that the accused is prima facie innocent to grant bail, unlike the more rigid requirements under NDPS law.
5. The court reviewed the only two statements against Beig, which were both recorded in 2010 — nearly four years after the alleged meeting in 2006. Importantly, neither witness actually went to Pakistan or joined any terrorist organisation, despite the alleged incitement. The prosecution’s case hinged on this supposed incitement, invoking Sections 18 and 18B of the UAPA, which carry penalties ranging from 5 years to life imprisonment.
6. Given that Beig had already been in jail for 13 years and 2 months, and the prosecution still intended to examine 30 more witnesses, the court took a practical view. As for the argument that LET (Lashkar-e-Taiba) wasn’t banned at the time of the 2006 meeting (it was only declared a terrorist organisation in 2008), the court said that this legal issue would be considered during trial, not at the bail stage.

CONCLUSION

Considering the limited and dated nature of the evidence against the appellant and the fact that he has already spent over 13 years in custody, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail, subject to strict conditions to ensure his cooperation during the trial. The earlier order rejecting his bail application was set aside, and the appellant was granted bail with specific safeguards, including regular reporting to authorities and restrictions on movement and contact with witnesses.

The Court clarified that its observations were only prima facie and would not influence the outcome of the trial, which must be decided independently by the Special Judge based on the merits of the case. Finally, the request to stay the judgment was denied, as the appellant continues to remain in custody in connection with another case.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/486341/
2. https://www.verdictum.in/pdf_upload/mirza-himayat-beig-umar-v-state-of-maharashtrawatermark-1577494.pdf

Written by Riya Tomar; an Intern under Legal Vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is personal.

Karan Chhetri

‘Social Media Head’ and ‘Case Analyst’ of Legal Vidhiya.