JUDGMENT : 1. The present application has been filed by the applicants-accused under Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code for regular bail. 2. The applicants–accused are charged with having committed offences under Sections 120(B), 121(A), 124(A), 153(A)(1)(b), 302, 307, 326, 435, 427, 465, 468, 471 and 212 of the Indian Penal Code, under Sections 3, 5, 6 and 7 of the Explosive Substance Act, 1908, under Sections 10, 13, 16, 18, 19, 20, 23, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, under Sections 25(1)(B)(A) and 27 of the Arms Act, under Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Damage to the Public Property Act, 1984, for which, FIR being IC. R.No.236/2008 has been lodged at Shahibaug Police Station, Ahmedabad. 3. The background of the facts briefly summarized is as follows: As per the prosecution case, the applicants-accused are involved in terrorist activity and they are alleged to have been involved in the bomb explosion and serial blast in Ahmedabad on 26.07.2008, where about 56 persons were killed and 240 persons have sustained injuries. As per the prosecution case, the Central Government had banned on the “Students Islamic Movement of India” (SIMI) in the month of September, 2001 and, therefore, new terrorist outfit for such activity has been formed viz., “Indian Mujaheedin” and they have been involved in such activity in organized manner. As a part of such activity, a training centre at Vaghmor at Kerala was established and also near Pavagadh, Halol in Gujarat State. Such training centre was started in December, 2007. The applicants-accused, as stated in detailed in the chargesheet, are said to have been involved and attended such training camps as a part of larger conspiracy, which led to serial blast in Ahmedabad. There were different cases registered and ultimately, the said cases have been clubbed as Sessions Case No.38 of 2001, which has been in progress and the trial is going on as directed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 4. Heard learned advocate, Shri Khalid G. Shaikh for the applicants-accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri J.M. Panchal appearing with learned advocate, Shri Kamal Panchal for the respondent-State. 5. 4. Heard learned advocate, Shri Khalid G. Shaikh for the applicants-accused and learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri J.M. Panchal appearing with learned advocate, Shri Kamal Panchal for the respondent-State. 5. Learned advocate, Shri Shaikh referred to the case of the prosecution and also the papers at length and submitted that the case of the prosecution as reflected in the chargesheet would suggest that the applicants had attended camp near Pavagadh. However, learned advocate, Shri Shaikh submitted that the trial has commenced and still it is likelihood that it may not be over as there are many witnesses to be examined resulting in delay. He further submitted that the Police remand of the applicants-accused was granted during investigation and nothing is recovered from the applicants. He further submitted that the charge against the applicants is regarding the presence at the training camp. However learned advocate, Shri Shaikh also referred to the confessional statement of one of the co-accused, Mahendi Hasan @ Vicky recorded by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate produced on record and submitted that the confessional statement at the most refers to the fact that the applicants were present and as stated, they had agreed to go for a picnic and, thereafter, they had come to the place of such training center. Learned advocate, Shri Shaikh, therefore, submitted that they had no intention regarding the involvement in any conspiracy, therefore, subsequently the statement has been made. He also referred to the proceeding of the case before the Rajasthan and submitted that the acquittal has been recorded for the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with under the charges for the offence under the Indian Penal Code. He further submitted relying upon the order in Criminal Bail Application No.1147/2003 before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay dated 21st October, 2013 that as observed in this judgment, knowledge and intention is relevant. Therefore learned advocate, Shri Shaikh had tried to emphasis that even if the role is attributed to the applicant, at the most it was a presence in the training camp participating training but there was no intention and knowledge. He emphasized the observations made in this judgment. He therefore submitted that it cannot be said that they were part of conspiracy with any awareness or the knowledge for such activity. He emphasized the observations made in this judgment. He therefore submitted that it cannot be said that they were part of conspiracy with any awareness or the knowledge for such activity. Learned advocate, Shri Shaikh also referred to the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in case of Patel Vishnubhai Shivrambhai Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in 2004 (3) GLH 297 and submitted that as observed, sensitiveness of the case should not be a criteria for denying the bail to the accused. He, therefore, submitted that though the trial has commenced, it is likely to take some time and, hence, the applicants may be released on bail considering the role attributed to them. 6. Per contra, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal referred to the background of the facts as narrated hereinabove with regard to SIMI Organization, which has been banned and new terrorist outfit viz., “Indian Mujaheedin” has been formed to carry out such terrorist activity. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal also referred to the background that initially serial blasts caused life of 56 persons and there were different cases registered, which ultimately culminated into one sessions case. He, therefore, submitted that it is required to be considered with reference to the gravity of the offence that similar camps were also at Kerala and, thereafter, at Pavagadh. He, therefore, strenuously submitted that such training camp is a part of conspiracy, which had hatched on a large scale to create such terror and it would amount to waging war against the State. He also referred to the details about the impact on such serial blasts. He submitted that it was a result of larger conspiracy. He pointedly referred to that aspect and emphasized the confessional statement and submitted that it reveals about the nature and manner in which the offence is committed. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal submitted that once the conspiracy is alleged where the applicants were admittedly part of the conspiracy, individual role may not be relevant as different persons may have different role at different stage. He, therefore, strenuously submitted that this itself is sufficient for conviction apart from the prima facie case. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal submitted that once the conspiracy is alleged where the applicants were admittedly part of the conspiracy, individual role may not be relevant as different persons may have different role at different stage. He, therefore, strenuously submitted that this itself is sufficient for conviction apart from the prima facie case. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal submitted that reference to the judgment at Jaipur case stands on a different footing as in that case, it was not a serial blast nor there was any confessional statement recorded under Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. He therefore submitted that as per the provision of the Evidence Act, confessional statement can be relied upon and for the purpose of deciding the bail application, prima facie case is established. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal further submitted that reference made to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in an application for bail being Criminal Bail Application No.1147/2003 referred to by learned advocate, Shri Shaikh is also misconceived. He further emphasized that the facts in that case were different and in any case, when there is larger conspiracy as in background of the facts it emerges, the Court is required to consider the national interest, the impact on the society and also the nature of evidence or the material placed before the Court. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal therefore submitted that when the trial has already commenced as per the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court and is in progress on regular basis, such application may not be entertained. He submitted that the submission that the trial is likely to take some time, is not a ground in such cases for exercise of the discretion for the grant of bail. In support of his submission, he has referred to and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, reported in (2004) 7 SCC 528 : AIR 2004 SC 1866 and emphasized the observations made in Paragraph No.14. He further submitted that the gravity of the offence and possibility of tampering with the witnesses when the trial is going, cannot be ruled out and, therefore, the present application may not be entertained. Similarly, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal referred to the judgment in case of State through CBI Vs. He further submitted that the gravity of the offence and possibility of tampering with the witnesses when the trial is going, cannot be ruled out and, therefore, the present application may not be entertained. Similarly, learned Special Public Prosecutor, Shri Panchal referred to the judgment in case of State through CBI Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3490 and emphasized the observation made in Paragraph No.19. He also referred to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Satish Jaggi Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2007) 11 SCC 195 and submitted that as it is a case of larger conspiracy and as there is a direct evidence apart from any indirect evidence, the present application may not be entertained, particularly when the trial is in progress. He also referred to and relied upon the order of the coordinate bench in Criminal Misc. Application No.10987/2013 (Corm : A.J. Desai, J.) in similar circumstances regarding such case of terrorist activity and submitted that bail has been refused. Similarly, he also referred to the order of the coordinate bench in Criminal Misc. Application No.15982/2013 (Coram : C.L. Soni, J.). 7. In rejoinder, learned advocate, Shri Shaikh has submitted that as stated above, the applicants had no knowledge about the plan for such terrorist activity and, therefore, taking confessional statement as it is, it does not reveal about any knowledge or intention, which may be considered. He further emphasized that in the confessional statement, nowhere it suggest about the admission that there was any knowledge. He, therefore, submitted that even if it is considered as a part of the conspiracy, role as well as the fact that the applicants were not aware and had no knowledge of such activity, the present application may be allowed. 8. In view of these rival submissions, it is required to be considered whether the present application deserves consideration. 9. As could be seen from the background of the facts, the applicants-accused are said to have participated in a terrorist training camp and such camps are at different place like Kerala or in Gujarat. The applicants are the accused of serial blasts in Ahmedabad, where 25 persons have lost their lives and even such incident had taken place in Hospital also resulting in further casuality. The applicants are the accused of serial blasts in Ahmedabad, where 25 persons have lost their lives and even such incident had taken place in Hospital also resulting in further casuality. It is in this background, the Court is required to consider the nature of offence and/or gravity of the offence and the impact on the society. Further it is not in dispute that the trial is in progress. 10. Moreover the submissions which have been made with much emphasis with regard to the fact that the applicants were not aware and they had no knowledge or intention about any such activity though they had remained present and participated in the training, cannot be readily accepted. It is required to be stated that assuming that at that stage, they had no knowledge but thereafter they had participated in the training and had not left when it would have been revealed that it is for what purpose. However the Court is not required to elaborately discuss and appreciate evidence as well as other material as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment in case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, reported in AIR 2012 SC 830 as well as the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State through C.B.I. Vs. Amarmani Tripathi, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3490 . 11. Again on the aspect of conspiracy, law is well settled that once it is prima facie established that the persons like the accused had acted in furtherance of the conspiracy, every person may not be having knowledge about the role of other or exact nature of the activity. The Hon’ble Apex Court has in a judgment in case of State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, reported in AIR 1996 SC 1744 has made observation referring to earlier judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ajay Aggarwal Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1993 SC 1637 ,- “Our attention is pointedly invited by Shri Tulsi to what was stated in para 24 of Ajay Aggarwal's case wherein Ramaswamy, J. stated that the law has developed several or different models or technique to broach the scope of conspiracy. One such model is that of a chain, where each party performs even without knowledge of the other, a role that aids succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy.” 12. One such model is that of a chain, where each party performs even without knowledge of the other, a role that aids succeeding parties in accomplishing the criminal objectives of the conspiracy.” 12. Thus the provision of Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code which defines the conspiracy making the conspiracy a separate offence has to be considered with reference to the provision of the Evidence Act, which has been considered by the Courts time and again. 13. Further a useful reference can be made to the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of State (N.C.T. of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu, reported in AIR 2005 SC 3820 (Parliament Attack Case), wherein it has been observed, “................... the confession throwing light on the common intention of all the accused can be used in evidence against the coconspirators or the co-accused irrespective of the fact that such statements were made after the conclusion of the conspiracy and after the accused were arrested.” 14. Moreover referring to the provision of Section 10 of the Evidence Act, it has been observed, "We cannot overlook that the basic principle which underlies Section 10 of the Evidence Act is the theory of agency. Every conspirator is an agent of his associate in carrying out the object of the conspiracy. Section 10, which is an exception to the general rule, while permitting the statement made by one conspirator to be admissible as against another conspirator restricts it to the statement made during the period when the agency subsisted.” 15. Therefore considering the aspect of conspiracy and the admitted presence and participation of the applicants read with confessional statement, it would prima facie suggest the involvement of the applicants-accused in the offence alleged. Again whether it was a part of larger conspiracy or not, it would be a matter of appreciation of evidence at the trial. Therefore the submissions made by learned advocate, Shri Shaikh cannot be readily accepted. Once prima facie involvement is suggested on the basis of the material and evidence as discussed including even confessional statements of the co-accused, the nature of offence or the gravity of offence would be relevant with impact on the society. Therefore the submissions made by learned advocate, Shri Shaikh cannot be readily accepted. Once prima facie involvement is suggested on the basis of the material and evidence as discussed including even confessional statements of the co-accused, the nature of offence or the gravity of offence would be relevant with impact on the society. Further as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as one of the relevant criteria or consideration for grant of bail would be whether there is any possibility or likelihood of tampering with the evidence or the witnesses as the trial is in progress. The apprehension voiced by learned Special Public Prosecutor that the applicants may tamper with the evidence or the witnesses, would not justify the exercise of discretion for grant of bail in such heinous crime, which is a crime against the society. It is required to be stated that the Court also cannot be obvious of the present scenario with the rise of the terrorism in different parts of the world with more advance technology and means of communication. It is in this circumstance, the Courts are required to balance the individual right of the applicants-accused persons vis-à-vis collective right of the society and humanity. Such organized crime which have been designed and implemented with well designed conspiracy would not stand on the same footing as in other crime in the society. In fact, the special statute has been enacted to curb and deal with such crime and, therefore, rigors of the criteria for grant of bail will have a more relevance like the gravity of the offence and the impact. 16. Another facet of submission made with much emphasis is that they had no knowledge and they have not participated and trial is likely to take some time. 16. Another facet of submission made with much emphasis is that they had no knowledge and they have not participated and trial is likely to take some time. However the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgment in case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar Vs Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr., reported in AIR 2004 SC 1866 has clearly made observation, “In such cases, in our opinion, the mere fact that the accused has undergone certain period of incarceration (three years in this case) by itself would not entitle the accused to being enlarged on bail, nor the fact that the trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future either by itself or coupled with the period of incarceration would be sufficient for enlarging the appellant on bail when the gravity of the offence alleged is severe and there are allegations of tampering with the witnesses by the accused during the period he was on bail.” 17. Therefore having regard to the aforesaid discussion and nature and gravity of the offence coupled with the fact that the trial is already in progress, the present application cannot be entertained and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.