In a landmark verdict, the Allahabad High Court quashes the conviction in the 1996 bus bombing case, citing lack of evidence and inadmissible police confession
PRAYAGRAJ — In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has acquitted Mohammad Ilyas, who spent over 28 years in prison for the 1996 Ghaziabad bus bombing in Modinagar, citing insufficient evidence and inadmissibility of his police confession. In the judgment on November 10, the court ordered his immediate release, marking the end of a long legal battle for the accused and his family.
The division bench, comprising Justices Siddharth and Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra, stated that Ilyas’s alleged confession to the police was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. “After removing the police confession, no legally valid evidence remains against the accused,” the court noted, underlining the flaws in the prosecution’s case.
On 27 April 1996, a bus from the Roorkee depot departed Delhi with 53 passengers, picking up 14 more in Mohan Nagar. As it crossed the Modinagar police station area, the bus’s front portion exploded, killing ten passengers instantly and seriously injuring 48 others. Post-mortem reports revealed metal fragments in the bodies, with deaths attributed to shock and severe bleeding from the blast.
Forensic reports confirmed that carbon-mixed RDX was planted under the driver’s seat, and the blast was triggered via remote control. The prosecution alleged that the attack was planned by Abdul Matin, also known as Iqbal, identified as a district commander of Harkat-ul-Ansar, with the participation of Mohammad Ilyas and another co-accused, Tasleem.
Ilyas, originally from Muzaffarnagar and residing in Punjab’s Ludhiana, was accused of being influenced by terrorists from Jammu and Kashmir and allegedly helping execute the bus bombing. He was arrested in 1997. In 2013, the trial court had acquitted Tasleem but convicted Ilyas and Abdul Matin under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, as well as the Explosive Substances Act, sentencing both to life imprisonment with fines.
However, the Allahabad High Court observed that the prosecution failed to conclusively prove Ilyas’s involvement. “The bomb was planted before the bus left Delhi’s ISBT, making it practically impossible to determine who planted it,” the bench said.
Witness accounts further weakened the case. Statements from 34 witnesses, including passengers, investigating officers, and medical personnel, were recorded, but none could identify the individual who planted the explosives. “Witness statements are inconsistent, and identification of the accused is impossible,” the court emphasised.
The prosecution had argued that Ilyas confessed to planting the bomb in the presence of his father and brother. They also cited Section 15 of the now-defunct Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA) to validate the confession. The high court rejected these claims, stating that confessions made to police cannot be treated as legal evidence.
“The audio-recorded confession cannot be considered under current law, as TADA has ceased to be effective,” the court noted, reinforcing that Ilyas’s conviction had no legal standing.
Given the lack of evidence, the court quashed the conviction and ordered Ilyas’s immediate release, provided he is not implicated in any other case. Upon release, he must furnish a personal bond and two sureties under Section 437-A of the CrPC.
Speaking to reporters outside the court, Ilyas’s lawyer said, “This verdict restores faith in justice. My client has suffered for over 28 years for a crime he did not commit. Today, truth has prevailed.”
A family member expressed relief, stating, “We have waited decades for this moment. Ilyas is finally free, and we hope society recognises the injustice he endured.”
Experts note that the case exposes deep flaws in law enforcement and the judicial process, particularly in cases involving terror accusations against Indian Muslims. Legal analyst Dr Farhan Ahmed commented, “This case shows how innocent individuals can remain imprisoned due to weak investigations and reliance on inadmissible confessions. The verdict sends a strong message about the importance of evidence-based prosecution.”
The acquittal of Mohammad Ilyas is being hailed by several civil rights groups as a landmark example of judicial fairness. Many observers believe it also underscores the need for greater safeguards against wrongful convictions, especially in high-profile terror cases where communal sensitivities may influence public perception.
