Allahabad High Court Acquits Mohammad Ilyas in 1996 Modinagar Bus Blast Case Due to Lack of Admissible Evidence

Court Overrules Conviction Based Solely on Confession to Police, Upholds Legal Bar Under Section 25 of Evidence Act; Acquitted Despite Gruesome Terror Attack Killing 16 Passengers

In a landmark judgment delivered on November 10, 2025, the Allahabad High Court (Division Bench) overturned the conviction of Mohammad Ilyas in connection with the 1996 Modinagar bus bombing that claimed 16 lives and injured 48 others. The Court acquitted Ilyas of all charges including murder (Section 302 IPC), attempted murder (Section 307 IPC), criminal conspiracy (Section 120-B IPC), waging war against the state (Section 121-A IPC), sedition (Section 124-A IPC), and offences under the Explosive Substances Act.

The horrific incident, which involved an explosion in a Roorkee-bound bus near Modi Nagar, Ghaziabad, was initially investigated as a terrorist attack. The prosecution’s primary evidence against Mohammad Ilyas was his alleged confession recorded by the police in an audio cassette during his arrest in Ludhiana, Punjab, in 1997. The confession implicated him along with co-accused Abdul Mateen, a Pakistani national, and another accused Tasleem in planting the bomb.

However, the Court scrutinized the admissibility of this confession under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, which prohibits confessions made to police officers being used as evidence against the accused. Despite the confession being recorded in the presence of Ilyas’s father and brother, the Court held that it does not qualify for admissibility. The Court further noted that no other prosecution evidence sufficiently connected Ilyas to the bombing.

Several prosecution witnesses, including those who were supposed to testify about Ilyas’s alleged extrajudicial confessions, turned hostile during the trial, weakening the prosecution’s case. Eyewitnesses and injured passengers confirmed the occurrence of the blast but could not identify the perpetrators. The diary and railway tickets seized from Ilyas's residence did not establish any direct involvement.

The Court highlighted the principles laid down by the Supreme Court and previous High Court judgments emphasizing that confessions to police are inadmissible unless made under special statutes like TADA (which was not applicable here as it had lapsed before the incident). It underscored that extrajudicial confessions require corroboration and must be voluntary and reliable. The Court also explained that the acquittal of co-accused Tasleem does not automatically weaken the prosecution’s case against Ilyas.

The judgment reflects the judiciary’s commitment to upholding constitutional safeguards even in sensitive terrorism cases, ensuring that convictions are not based solely on inadmissible confessions or uncorroborated evidence. While the Court expressed sorrow over the tragic loss of life, it concluded that justice cannot be compromised by convicting an accused without legally admissible proof.

Mohammad Ilyas, who had been in jail custody during the appeal proceedings, was directed to be released forthwith, subject to furnishing personal bonds and sureties. The Court also mandated compliance reports from the trial court to ensure execution of the release order.

This decision reiterates the fundamental tenet of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt with admissible evidence, and no person shall be convicted merely on suspicion or inadmissible confessions.

Bottom Line:

Confessional statement recorded before police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and conviction cannot be based solely on such confession; proof of criminal conspiracy can be based on direct or circumstantial evidence; acquittal warranted where prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of legally admissible evidence.

Statutory provision(s): Sections 302, 307, 427, 109, 120-B, 121-A, 124-A, 114 IPC, Sections 4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, Section 12 of Foreigners Act, Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act, Section 161 CrPC, Section 313 CrPC

Mohd. Ilyas v. State of U.P., (Allahabad)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2810446