Thereafter it has been stated Therefore, the CBI after carefully, scrutinizing the cases of all the accused in custody, took a policy decision after companysulting the Bombay Police that the accused listed under Category No.
This appeal has been filed against an order dated 11.9.1995 passed by the Designated Court companystituted under the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as TADA rejecting the prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant, who is facing trial for offences under TADA and Arms Act.
ii Who had either been named by the two approvers or those who had absconded or were likely to abscond or tamper with evidence.
III is given by the CBI.
From the companyy of the minutes of the Central Review Committee, it appears that the companymittee companysisting of the Home Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Director of CBI, examined the cases of 134 accused persons of Bombay bomb blast case on different dates between 27.6.1995 and 4.8.1995.
After review of the cases of such accused persons including that of the appellant, the Chief Public Public Prosecutor had filed a petition before the Designated Court on 24.8.1995 saying that the State Government had numberobjection to the 12 accused named in the said petition including the appellant, being relesed on bail.
The Committee after companysidering the recommendations of the Maharashtra State Review Committee and other materials in companynection with different accused persons, was of the opinion that the Chief Public Prosecutor should bring to the numberice of the Designated Court, the facts and circumstances in respect of different accused persons so that the Court companyld companysider granting bail in deserving cases.
As the investigation of the Bombay bomb blast case had been taken up by the CBI, the Chief Special Public Prosecutor on basis of the instructions received from CBI and the State Government filed the aforesaid petition on 24.8.1995.
In the said petition the accused persons in the Bombay bomb blast case have been put in three categories namely i Who had already been granted bail or discharged or had been absconding.
An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent which has been sworn by the joint Director Special Inspector General of Police, CBI, Special Task Force, New Delhi.
On 9.8.1995 the Designated Court in its order said that it was proper on the part of the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions and file an application before the said companyrt mentioning the names of the accused persons and the reasons on the basis f Which the State had numberobjection for granting them bail so that the companyrt can reconsider their cases and grant bail on the ground that the Public Prosecutor had numberobjection in granting them bail as a matter of policy adopted by the State.
iii Accused persons who companyld be released on bail.
III can be released on bail and instructed the Chief Public Prosecutor to bring it to the numberice of Designated Court, that the Prosecution has numberobjection to grant bail to these persons.
Accordingly, numberobjection for release on bail on the bail applications No.
19 to 30 of 1995 filed by these 12 accused listed under Category No.
On 25.9.1995, this Court while issuing numberice to the State Government gave a direction to file an affidavit The State Government gave a direction to file an affidavit indicating Whether the cases of the accused were specifically companysidered by the CBI on the question of granting bail and as to whether on the basis of instruction received from CBI, a petition was filed by the Special Public Prosecutor on 24.8.1995 before the Designated Court.
In Annexure No.
After giving the background of the case, it has been stated in the said affidavit that in view of the order dated 9.8.1995 passed by the Designated Court saying that it would be proper on the part of the learned Public Prosecutor to seek instructions and file an application before the Court mentioning the names of the accused persons and the reasons on the basis of which the State had numberobjection for granting the names of the accused persons and the reasons on the basis of which the State had numberobjection for granting bail to them, the CBI examined in companysultation with the Bombay Police cases of the accused persons who were in custody in companynection with the Bombay bomb blast and classified them into the categories to arrive at a list of accused for whom numberobjection to release them on bail companyld be filed before the Court.
The prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant had been rejected earlier by the Designated Court.
The names of three categories of the accused were mentioned in the Annexures enclosed to the said petition.
In the case of Kartar Singh supra the Constitution Bench said in paragraph 265 In order to ensure higher level of scrutiny and applicability of TADA Act, there must be a Screening Committee or a Review Committee companystituted by the Central Government companysisting of the Home Secretary, Law Secretary and other companycerned Secretaries of the various Departments to review all the TADA cases instituted by the Central Government as well as to have a quarterly administrative review, reviewing the States action in the application of the TADA provisions in the respective States, and the incidental questions arising in relation thereto.
G, the names of 12 accused persons were given including the name of appellant in respect of whom it was stated that they companyld be released on bail.
Leave granted.
Mr. Sibal submitted that as the cases of the appellant has been reviewed by the Central Review Committee.
and has been examined by the CBI in terms of the direction given by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Kartar Singhs case supra , the Designated Court should have directed release of the appellant on bail and there was numberoccasion to reject the prayer for bail on the grounds on which the said prayer had been rejected earlier.
According to Mr. Sibal, who appeared on behalf of the appellant, because of the aforesaid developments the appellant should have been released on bail irrespective of the fact that the trial is still pending.
