Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dealt with an appeal against the order of the Designated Court under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 rejecting bail. The appellant was facing trial for offences under TADA and the Arms Act in connection with the Bombay bomb blast case. Earlier bail applications had been rejected. Following the Constitution Bench direction in Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, the Central and State Review Committees scrutinised the cases of TADA accused. The Maharashtra State Review Committee submitted its report, and the Central Review Committee examined 134 accused persons between 27 June 1995 and 4 August 1995. The Committee opined that the Chief Public Prosecutor should place facts before the Designated Court to enable grant of bail in deserving cases. On 9 August 1995, the Designated Court itself observed that the Public Prosecutor should seek instructions and file an application classifying accused. Pursuant to this, the Chief Special Public Prosecutor filed a petition on 24 August 1995 categorising accused into three groups: those already released/discharged/absconding, those likely to abscond or tamper, and those who could be released on bail. The appellant's name appeared in Annexure G under Category III, along with 11 other accused. The State of Maharashtra and the CBI had no objection to bail for these 12 accused. The Designated Court nevertheless rejected the fresh bail application on 11 September 1995. The Supreme Court noted that both the appellant's counsel and the Additional Solicitor General representing the State supported releasing the appellant on bail. The Court held that the entire exercise of the Central Review Committee was pursuant to Kartar Singh, and the Special Public Prosecutor's petition implemented that decision; therefore, the petition did not merit rejection. The Court found the three-fold categorisation rational and the appellant's inclusion in Category III justified. It held that the changed fact-situation rendered the earlier decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay (1994) 6 SCC 86 irrelevant and made Section 20(8)(b) TADA inapplicable. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed release of the appellant on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs 5 lakh with two sureties of like amount, surrender of passport immediately, not hampering investigation, not tampering with evidence, not threatening or influencing witnesses, appearing before the Designated Court as directed, and complying with any other directions. Bail was to be cancelled if any of these conditions was violated.
Headnote
A) Criminal Law - Bail under TADA - Bail conditions and judicial discretion - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20(8)(b) - The Designated Court rejected the appellant's fresh bail application without considering that the Central Review Committee and CBI, pursuant to Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, had scrutinised the accused and classified him in Category III for release on bail - The Supreme Court held that the changed fact-situation made Section 20(8)(b) TADA inapplicable and that the Designated Court failed to examine the matter in proper perspective; the categorisation being rational, the appellant was ordered to be released on bail on conditions including Rs 5 lakh bond, passport surrender, and non-interference with witnesses - Held that the petition filed by the Chief Special Public Prosecutor did not merit rejection (Para numbers not mentioned in judgment). B) TADA Jurisprudence - Screening/Review Committee Directions - Binding effect of Kartar Singh directions - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 - In Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, the Constitution Bench directed constitution of Central and State Review Committees for higher level scrutiny of TADA cases; the Committees reviewed the accused's case and the CBI made a policy decision to not object to bail for Category III accused - The Designated Court was bound to give due weight to the Public Prosecutor's petition implementing the Committee's decision and could not reject it arbitrarily - Held that the whole exercise was pursuant to the Supreme Court's direction and the petition deserved acceptance (Para numbers not mentioned in judgment). C) Precedent - Changed circumstances - Earlier judgment on bail ceases to apply - Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20(8)(b) - The earlier Supreme Court decision in Sanjay Dutt v. State through CBI, Bombay, (1994) 6 SCC 86 was held to have ceased to be relevant because the fact-situation had materially changed after the Review Committee's examination and CBI's policy decision - The Court distinguished the previous ruling and allowed the appeal on the basis of the new facts - Held that Section 20(8)(b) TADA was not attracted in the changed circumstances (Para numbers not mentioned in judgment).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Designated Court erred in rejecting bail when the Central Review Committee and CBI had scrutinised the accused's case and the Special Public Prosecutor had filed a petition stating no objection to bail, thereby rendering Section 20(8)(b) TADA inapplicable.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; appellant ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs 5 lakhs with two sureties of like amount to satisfaction of Designated Court; appellant to surrender passport immediately, not hamper investigation, tamper evidence, threaten/influence witnesses; bail liable to cancellation on failure; appellant to appear as directed and comply with court directions.
Law Points
- Bail under TADA
- Section 20(8)(b) TADA
- Review Committee under Kartar Singh
- no-objection by prosecution
- rational categorisation of accused
- changed circumstances
- Designated Court's duty to consider proper perspective
