680 of 1987 S. Poti, G.A. Shah, Shankar Ghosh, M.N. Shroff, Vimal Dave, M.R. Barot, E.C. Agarwala, Vijay Pandit, Ms. P. Bhatt, Shakil Ahmad Syed, N.M. Ghatate, S.V. Deshpande, B.R. Dutta, Mrs. H. Wahi, S.S. Khanduja, S.R. Srivastava, Mrs. R. Gupta, K. Gupta, S. Bhasma and A.M. Khanwilkar,for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN,J. This appeal by special leave petition are directed against the judgment and order of the Gujarat High Court dated May 12, 1987 and the orders passed by various Designated Court in the State companystituted under s. 9 1 of the Terrorist Disruptive activities prevention Act, 1987 mainly raise two questions of substantial importance.
In other cases, the persons under detention have applied for grant of special leave under Art.
As to the facts.
The prosecution case in brief is as follows.
On the morning of March 10, 1987, there was an armed clash between the appellants who are members of a companyperative housing society, and the two sons of the original vendor Babubhai Kansara Mohamed Ramzan Alabux and their companypanions over possession of the disputed plot admeasuring 16,000 square yards resulting in multiple injuries to members of both the groups.
The appellants as such members were in possession of the said plot, and as law abiding citizens had instituted Civil Suit No.
108 of 1987 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Narol, applied for and obtained temporary injunction and had gone with the bailiff to have the injunction order served on the opposite party.
Their case is that they had entered into an agreement dated August 11, 1979 with the original vendor Babubhai Kansara for the purchase of the disputed plot.
The price fixed was Rs.
Facts in the companynected special leave petitions which are all directed against the orders passed by different Designated Courts rejecting the applications for bail, are apt to differ from case to case.
35 per square yard and Rs.
From the Judgment and order dated 12.6.1987 of the Gujarat High Court in Misc.
3 13 of 1987 etc.
60,000 were paid as earnest money.
They as such members of the society had also paid from time to time by instalments a total amount of Rs.3,50,000 which was equivalent to 30 of the total sale companysideration and had been placed in possession of the land by the vendor by a deed acknowledging the receipt of money and mentioning the delivery of possession.
They had also intimated the police about the grant of injunction and sought help to prevent breach of peace but the police took numberaction despite the endorsement made by the Inspector of Police on their application directing S.I., Satellite Station to take appropriate action and prevent any untoward incident.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
After the death of the vendor, his two sons Karam Ali and Iqbal Ali disowned the transaction and started creating obstructions in the enjoyment of the land by the society, as a result of which on March 9, 1987 the society was companystrained to institute the aforesaid suit and obtained a temporary injunction, and also a direction from the learned Civil Judge ordering the Chief Bailiff to execute the injunction order on the two sons of the original vendor.
The appellants moved an application for bail but the Designated Court by its order dated March 24, 1987 rejected the same holding that there were numberreasonable grounds for it to believe that the appellants were number guilty of an offence under s. 3 of the Act apart from various other offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
As apprehended, the two sons of the original vendor Karam Ali and Iqbal Ali put up armed resistance and in the scuffle both sides sustained injuries.
At the time of the incident, the police arrived at the spot and apprehended the appellants The appellants were straightaway produced before the Designated Court within a period of 24 hours after their arrest without receiving the companyplaint of facts which companystitute offences alleged to have been companymitted or a police report as required under s. 14 1 .
Appln.
