Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from an order of the Designated Court extending the detention of the appellant beyond the statutory period under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The appellant was arrested on 19 January 1993 in connection with FIR No. 316/93 involving offences under Sections 302, 307, 326, 323, 436, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act. He was remanded to judicial custody, and the statutory period of 180 days expired on 17 July 1995. Before expiry, on 12 July 1995, the Designated Court No. II, Tis Hazari, Delhi, extended the period for completion of investigation by 60 days under Section 20(4)(bb) of TADA, based solely on an application by the investigating officer. The order was passed without any report from the Public Prosecutor and without producing the appellant or giving him notice. Consequently, the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate extended judicial remand until 15 September 1995. The appellant filed a bail application on 17 July 1995 challenging the extension, contending that the conditions under Section 20(4)(bb) were not fulfilled. The central legal issues were whether the extension order was valid absent the Public Prosecutor's report and notice to the accused, and whether the appellant's right to default bail subsisted after filing of the challan. The appellant argued that the extension was invalid and relied on Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra. The respondent contended that the extension was properly considered and that, as per Sanjay Dutt v. State, the right to default bail was extinguished once the challan was filed. The Supreme Court held that an order extending detention under Section 20(4)(bb) of TADA must be based on a report of the Public Prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation and specific reasons for continued detention; the investigating officer's request is not a substitute. The accused must also be produced or given notice to object. The extension order dated 12 July 1995 was therefore erroneous and unsustainable. On the question of bail, the Court followed the Constitution Bench in Sanjay Dutt, holding that the right to default bail is enforceable only prior to filing of the challan and does not survive thereafter; once the challan is filed, bail must be considered on merits under provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Since the appellant's bail application was pending before the Designated Court, the Supreme Court refrained from deciding it. The appeal and bail application were disposed of with a direction to the Designated Court to decide the pending bail application expeditiously in accordance with law, keeping in view the principles laid down in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Sanjay Dutt. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Default Bail - Extension of Detention under TADA - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20(4)(bb) - Designated Court granted 60-day extension on 12 July 1995 without report of Public Prosecutor and without producing accused - Court held order invalid because mandatory report and notice to accused absent, and validity must be assessed with reference to facts existing on date of order (Paras Not mentioned). B) Criminal Procedure - Public Prosecutor's Report - Extension of Detention - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20(4)(bb); Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2) - Report must indicate progress of investigation and specific reasons for detention beyond 180 days; request of investigating officer is no substitute - Court held no extension can be granted without Public Prosecutor's independent application of mind as required by clause (bb) (Paras Not mentioned). C) Criminal Procedure - Notice to Accused - Extension of Detention - Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20(4)(bb) - Accused must be produced or given notice to object to extension; production at time of consideration suffices - Court held order passed behind back of accused without production rendered extension erroneous (Paras Not mentioned). D) Criminal Procedure - Right to Default Bail and Filing of Challan - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 167(2); Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, Section 20(4)(bb) - Indefeasible right to default bail is enforceable only prior to filing of challan; once challan filed, bail must be considered on merits - Court held pending bail application before Designated Court should be decided in accordance with law, as the right is extinguished after challan (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the extension of detention under Section 20(4)(bb) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was valid absent Public Prosecutor's report and notice to accused; whether right to default bail survived after filing of challan.
Final Decision
Appeal disposed of. Order of Designated Court dated 12 July 1995 granting extension under Section 20(4)(bb) TADA held erroneous and unsustainable. Designated Court directed to dispose of pending bail application expeditiously in accordance with law, keeping in view principles in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Sanjay Dutt. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Extension of detention under Section 20(4)(bb) TADA requires Public Prosecutor's report
- investigating officer's request is not substitute
- accused must be produced or given notice
- right to default bail extinguished upon filing of challan
- validity assessed on facts existing on date of order.
