+91 964 334 1948
04 Nov 2025, 02:13 PM
The Supreme Court on October 3 issued notice to the State of Rajasthan in a plea filed by complainant Syed Sarwar Chishty, Khadim of Dargah Sharif, Ajmer, challenging the dismissal of the appeal by the Rajasthan High Court against the acquittal of 7 persons by the NIA Special Court in the 2007 Ajmer Dargah bomb blast.
The notice was issued by a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The present special leave petition is filed against the Rajasthan High Court's order dated May 4, 2022, whereby it dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of seven persons, who were accused of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
On March 8, 2017, the Court Special Judge, NIA Cases, acquitted 7 persons and convicted 2. It acquitted Lokesh Sharma, Chandrashekhar Leve, Mukesh Vasani, Harshad alis Munna alis Raj, Nabakumar Sarkar alis Swami Aseemanand, Mafat alis Mehul, Bharat Mohanlal Rateshwar. However, Devendra Gupta and Bhavesh Patel were convicted. They were found guilty under sections 120 B (criminal conspiracy), 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) of the Indian Penal Code, various sections of the Explosive Substances Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Against the acquittals, an appeal was filed on June 1, 2017, but it came for hearing in 2022. According to the petitioner, it came to be dismissed on an incorrect strict interpretation of Section 21(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008, on the ground that the delay of 1135 days by the petitioner could not be condoned beyond a period of 90 days.
The petition challenges the interpretation of Section 21(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, arguing that a rigid bar on appeals beyond 90 days violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India by arbitrarily restricting the fundamental right to appeal and access to justice for victims and complainants.
The petition highlights that an overly restrictive reading of Section 21(5) undermines victims' rights and creates an arbitrary distinction between cases investigated by the NIA and those handled by other agencies. It cites key precedents such as Mangu Ram v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Mohd. Abaad Ali v. Directorate of Revenue Prosecution Intelligence, affirming that the right to appeal forms part of the right to a fair trial under Article 21.
Case Details: SYED SARWAR CHISHTY v STATE OF RAJASTHAN| Diary No. 51829-2025
Association for Protection of Civil Rights legal team represented the complainant. The complainant was represented by Senior Advocate Abhay Mahadeo Thipsay, Advocate Sowjhanya Shankaran, Advocate Siddharth Satija, and Advocate M. Huzaifa.