GULZAR AHMED AZMI & ANR.versusUNI.ON OF INDIA & ORS.

                    [2012] 9 S.C.R. 287


              GULZAR AHMED AZMI & ANR.                         A
                             v.
                 UNI.ON OF INDIA & ORS.
            (Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 19 of 2012)

                    OCTOBER 11, 2012
                                                               B
   [T.S. THAKUR AND FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM
                 KALIFULLA, JJ.]

     Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 32 rlw Article 21 -
Bomb blast cases since 2002 - Investigation - Grievance of C
the writ petitioners that while the real culprits were being
shielded, innocent Muslim boys were being roped in such
cases - Prayer that in order to unearth the truth, the Supreme
Court should direct the first respondent to constitute a
Committee headed by a retired Judge of the Supreme Court       o
and assisted by a team of officers having competent
investigation skills along with other experts - Held: Not
tenable - If 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 E
bomb blasts all over the country - 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 F
any offence either under the provisions of Indian Penal Code
or under any other special enactments, by way of criminal
proceeding, there are enough safeguards provided under the
various laws and under the criminal law jurisprudence, to
protect the interest of any such person - When the time tested G
Criminal Procedure Code and other statutory provisions are
working in the field providing for such we/I laid down procedure
to be followed in the matter of regulating such criminal
                            287
                                                               H
   288        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A 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 the
  Supreme Court which would be Jacking in very many
  procedural details and will ultimately result in utter chaos and
B confusion in dealing with the criminal proceedings which have
  already been lodged and progressing before various criminal
  courts - It is 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
c to seek for any appropriate legal assistance on their own,
  there is no dearth for seeking legal assistance free of cost -
  It cannot be held that the concerned individuals will be left with
  no remedy - Writ petition accordingly dismissed.

      CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Crl)
D No. 19 of 2012.

         Under Ar!:icle 32 of the Constitution of India.

         A. Sharan, Syed Mehdi Imam, Atif Suhrawardy, Tarbez
E Ahmed, Somesh Jha for the Petitioners.

         The Order of the Court was delivered by

        FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J. 1. The
  petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 32 read
F 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
G petitioners, we find that there are as many as six substantive
  prayers made by them including constitution of a Committee
  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
H
  GULZAR AHMED AZMI & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA                  289
    [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
since 2002 onwards. The prayer specifically mentions a list by        A
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
                                                                      B
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           C
against the officers of Central and State Intelligence Agencies,
who furnished wrong inputs to the State Police and thereby
pressurised them to arrest innocent Muslim boys.

     5. In the fourth prayer the petitioners prayed for a direction   D
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    E
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              F
Annexure P-45 against whom there is no clinching or conclusive
evidence.

    7. To sum-up the grievance of the petitioners, as per the
averments contained in the petition, is that the real culprits are    G
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
                                                                      H
    290       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 9 S.C.R.


A   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
8
  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,
C inclined to countenance such a wide prayer asked for in this
  writ petition.

         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
D 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
E 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
F 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 filing of the final report. Such a power existing
G 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
H
 GULZAR AHMED AZMI & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA                   291
  [FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, J.]
the field providing for such well laid down procedure to be           A
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   B
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 special   c
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     D
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           E
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.
                                                                      F
     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 Authority and its effective
                                                                      G
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
                                                                      H
    292       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012) 9 S.C.R.

A   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.
B
          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
C petition fails and the same is dismissed.

    B.B.B.                             -   Writ Petition dismissed.