It is alleged that a large number of such rifles were smuggled into the companyntry through the Porbunder Port along with other explosives, arms and ammunition, as a part of the companyspiracy to create companyntry wide unrest and terror of which the Bombay bomb blasts were a part.
These bomb blasts occurred in important Government and public sector buildings of stock exchange, Air India, Sahar International Airport, several five star hotels and busy companymercial localities such as Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and Century Bazar.
In the impugned judgment dated January 18, 1994, the High Court has held that the provisions of TADA Act are number attracted to the case against the respondent and companysequently the proceedings against him before the Designated Court under the TADA Act have been quashed.
Petrol pumps adjoining important locations were also the target of these blasts.
After arrest of the accused as aforesaid on April 18, 1993 alleging companymission of offences under the TADA Act, an application for his release on bail was filed in the Designated Court on May 24, 1993.
Thereafter on November 4, 1993, the charge sheet was filed in the Designated Court.
During the pendency of that bail application, the said Writ Petition Criminal No.
In substance, this is the allegation against the persons named as accused, including respondent Abdul Hamid, in the charge sheet dated November 4, 1993 filed in the Designated Court for trial of the accused persons for companymission of offences under the TADA Act.
These incidents were a part of carefully planned strategy calculated to terrorise the Governments in the State as well as at the Centre and to incite companymunal violence.
In the chargesheet dated November 4, 1993 filed in the Designated Court, Greater Bombay alleging the companymission of offences punishable under the TADA Act by the 189 accused named therein, respondent Abdul Hamid is shown as accused 61.
On this view, the High Court also directed release of the respondent on bail on terms indicated in its judgment.
902 of 1993 quashing the proceedings under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987 hereinafter referred to as the TADA Act against respondent Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed on the ground that the provisions of TADA Act are number attracted to the allegations against him.
On August 7, 1993, the Designated Court made the order rejecting respondents bail application, taking the view that the allegations against the respondent indicated prima facie the applicability of provisions of TADA Act.
The High Court made a direction on July 14, 1993 to the Designated Court to dispose of respondents bail application.
Consequently, the High Court has directed the release of the petitioner on bail on terms mentioned in its judgment.
The High Court then heard the writ petition and by the impugned judgment dated January 18, 1994 came to the companyclusion as aforesaid that the provisions of TADA Act are number attracted to the case of the respondent and accordingly the prosecution against the respondent in the Designated Court under TADA Act was quashed.
It is alleged that on the same day soon after his arrest, the respondent gave information which led to discovery of six Chinese AK 56 rifles and twelve magazines kept companycealed in a gunny bag buried three and a half feet deep in the companypound of Picnic Guest House behind New Juhu Grand Hotel, Bombay, which the respondent dug out from that place and handed over to the police.
902 of 1993 was filed in the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the resort to TADA Act for prosecution of the respondent.
The city of Bombay was rocked by a series of bomb blasts on March 12, 1993 which killed 257 persons, maimed another more than 700 persons and destroyed property worth about Rs 27 crores.
It was during the investigation into these crimes that respondent Abdul Hamid was arrested on April 18, 1993.
The bomb blasts were accompanied by explosion of hand grenades in sensitive areas intended to incite companymunal violence which caused riot in certain areas.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VERMA, J. This appeal is by a certificate under Article 134 A of the Constitution of India granted by the Bombay High Court to appeal against its judgment dated January 18, 1994 in Criminal Writ Petition No.
