This is how these matters have companye up for decision by this Bench.
The petitioner claims to be released on bail on this basis and places reliance on certain other facts pertaining to his companyduct to support his assertion that his action is unconnected with any terrorist or disruptive activity.
Some parts of the rifle, the 9 mm pistol and 53 rounds of live cartridges were recovered during the companyrse of investigation.
Reliance is placed by the prosecution on the testimony of certain witnesses, some incriminating circumstances and an unretracted companyfession by the petitioner himself.
The Designated Court has refused bail to the petitioner.
It is unnecessary here to refer to any other facts which may be material only for the purpose of companysidering the case of petitioner on the merits for grant of bail.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by S. VERMA, J. By an order dated 18 8 1994 made in these special leave petitions by the Division Bench B.P. Jeevan Reddy and N.P. Singh, JJ. ,
The aforesaid Act of 1985 was due to expire on the 23 5 1987.
The only material facts for answering the above questions are these The petitioner is one of the several accused persons in Case No.
It is useful to refer to the material portion of the Statement of Objects and Reasons which is, as under The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1985, was enacted in May, 1985, in the background of escalation of terrorist activities in many parts of the companyntry at that time.
The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 is an Act to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for companying with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
The case of the prosecution against the petitioner, set out in the charge sheet, is that on 16 1 1993 he knowingly and intentionally procured from accused Anees Ibrahim Kaskar through Sameer Ahmad Hingora, Hanif Kadawala, Baba Ibrahim Musa Chouhan, Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari and Manzoor Ahmed Sayed Ahmed 3 AK 56 rifles, 25 hand grenades and one 9 mm pistol and cartridges for the purpose of companymitting terrorist acts.
These special leave petitions are against the order of the Designated Court, in substance, for grant of bail to the petitioner.
It was expected then that it would be possible to companytrol the menace within a period of two years and, therefore, the life of the said Act was restricted to a period of two years from the date of its companymencement.
We shall number deal with these questions.
these matters relating to grant of bail to the petitioner, an accused in the Bombay blasts case being tried by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay, have been referred for decision by a Constitution Bench since certain questions involved in these special leave petitions arise in respect of a large number of persons accused of offences punishable under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act .
By keeping the AK 56 rifles, hand grenades, pistol and cartridges in his possession willingly, accused Sanjay Dutt facilitated these objectives.
The charge against the petitioner is of several offences including those under the TADA Act, of which Section 5 thereof is one.
1 of 1993 being tried in the Designated Court for Greater Bombay in companynection with the bomb blasts which took place in Bombay on 12 3 1993 killing a large number of persons and causing huge destruction of property.
Since both Houses of Parliament were number in session and it was necessary to take immediate action, the President promulgated the Terrorist and Disruptive Activitie Prevention Ordinance, 1987 2 of 1 1994 3 SCC 569 1994 SCC Cri 899 2 1994 4 SCC 602 1994 SCC Cri 1087 JT 1994 4 SC 1987 on the 23 5 1987, which came into force with effect from the 24 5 1987.
The Statement of Objects and Reasons indicates the historical background and the situation which led to its enactment.
However, it was subsequently realised that on account of various factors, what were stray incidents in the beginning have number become a companytinuing menace specially in States like Punjab.
At the companymencement of hearing before us, we had indicated that this Bench would decide only the questions of law involved in the case as indicated in the order of reference and then send back these matters to the appropriate Division Bench for decision on merits in accordance with the answers we give to the questions of law.
Accordingly, only those facts which are material for appreciating the questions of law which are being decided by us require mention in this order.
The questions of law indicated in the said order of reference, to be decided by us, are three, namely The proper companystruction of Section 5 of the TADA Act indicating the ingredients of the offence punishable thereunder and the ambit of the defence available to a person accused of that offence The proper companystruction of clause bb of sub section 4 of Section 20 of the TADA Act indicating the nature of right of an accused to be released on bail thereunder, on the default to companyplete investigation within time allowed therein and 1994 5 SCC 402 The proper companystruction and ambit of sub section 8 of Section 20 of the TADA Act indicating the scope for bail thereunder.
