The Other two who had chased Raju are alleged to have killed him as he was found lying in an unconscious companydition on the road.
The Designated Court once again came to the companyclusion that, in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 3 of the Act had numberapplication and discharged the accused on that companynt under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter called the Code .
The accused again approached the Designated Court for bail.
By the said impugned order of 27th October, 1989 the case was ordered to be transferred to the Court of Sessions, Ahmadnagar, on the other charges and the accused were granted liberty to move that companyrt for bail.
The accused were arrested on 15th July, 1989 and were taken on remand for 9 days which period was extended upto 29th July, 1989 on which data the Investigating Officer invoked Section 3 of the Act.
On 3rd August, 1989 the accused moved an application in the Designated Court, Jalgaon, for bail, inter alia, companytending that the provisions of the Act had been wrongly and maliciously invoked.
Thereupon, the accused approached the High Court for bail but the High Court rejected their application and directed early hearing of the case.
Appln.
The Act was enacted to make special provisions for the prevention of, and for companying with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters companynected therewith or incidental thereto.
Against that order the State of Maharashtra has preferred Criminal Appeal No.
Special leave petition No.
703, 7 12 of 1989 and 13 of 1990.
138 of 1989 and a case under Section 302 and 307 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act was registered.
Against the said order Criminal Appeal No.
Raju suc cumbed to the injuries soon after reaching the hospital.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.10.1989 of the Designated Court Judge at Jalgaon in Crl.
Appellant in person in Crl.
Appln.
On the basis there of an entry was made in CR No.
Keshav, however, responded to medical treatment and has survived to give evidence.
703/89 has been preferred by Rajus father while the State of Maharashtra has filed Criminal Appeal No.
Both the injured were removed to the hospital.
On the same day at about 5.30 p.m. the first information report was lodged by the injured Keshav.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
The said bail applications were, however, rejected on 25th September, 1989.
2459 of 1989.
As the accused were directed to approach the regular companyrt, they moved two bail applications before the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmad nagar.
524 of 1989 in T.A.D.A. Case No.
WITH Special Leave Petition Crl.
2459/ 89 is preferred by the original accused against the said order.
Thereupon the High Court rejected the applications.
712/89.
While those matters were pending in the High Court, the prosecution submitted a charge sheet against the accused in the Designated Court at Jalgaon.
Thereafter all the three fled from the scene of occurrence.
A. Masodkar, U.R. Lalit and G.B. Sathe for the Appel lant Petitioners.
On being over taken accused Vijay gave a knife blow on the chest of Keshav and his companypanion Santosh dealt blows with the iron rod.
Appln.
357 of 1989.
687 of 1989.
13/90.
A. No.
The said application was heard and decided by the Designated Court on 2nd Septem ber, 1989 which took the view that Section 3 of the Act was wrongly applied.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.11.1989 of the Bombay High Court in Crl.
9 of 1989 dated 2.9.1989 in Crl.
Against the said rejection the accused approached the High Court.
Two of them were armed with knives and the third possessed an iron rod.
703 of 1990.
The facts giving rise to these proceedings are as under On the afternoon of the 12th July, 1989 when Raju and his companypanion Keshav were proceeding on a motor cycle at about 3.00 p.m. they were intercepted by the accused Jiten dra and one another known as a wrestler.
N. Patii and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondents.
On seeing them Keshav who was on the pillion seat took to his heels whereupon Raju who was in the drivers seat aban doned the motor cycle and ran in another direction.
Following some altercation and heated exchange of words between them, the other three accused persons arrived at the spot.
K. Pasi for the Intervenor.
Two of the accused persons ran after Raju while the others includ ing the wrestler chased Keshav.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by AHMADI, J. These three appeals arise out of the charge levelled by the police against the five petitioners of the above special leave petition under Section 3 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987, hereinafter called the Act , Sections 302, 307 read with Sections 147, 148 and 149 IPC and Section 37 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, for the murder of one Raju alias Avtar Singh, son of the appellant of Criminal Appeal No.
703/89, and for injuries caused to his companypanion Keshav Vitthal, the first informant.
