A brief reference to the facts of the case at this stage is desirable.
739 of 1993 The appellant is aggrieved by the rejection of his bail application No.
446 of 1992 and the same was transferred to DCB CID, Bombay, for further investigation.
738 of 1993 as number pressed at this stage, without expressing any opinion on merits.
90 of 1989.
732 735 of 1993, we grant the prayer of Mr Kaushal and dismiss Criminal Appeal No.
732 35 of 1993 These appeals are directed against the companymon judgment and order of the Designated Court dated 31 7 1993 and though have been preferred by S Shri Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, Raja Maruti Jadhav, Dilip Shankar Waghcoude and Dhyaneshwar Bhaskar Patil, the same have been pressed and argued on behalf of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur only by Mr T. Vanamalai and Mr Swaraj Kaushal, learned Senior Advocates.
There is, therefore, numbermerit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed.
Among the other amendments made to TADA Section 20 4 b was amended by which the time for filing the charge sheet was reduced from one year to 180 days.
Criminal Appeal Nos.
2736 of 1992 was dismissed by this Court.
Criminal Appeal No.
The writ petition was, however, dismissed on 23 10 1992 by the High Court with the observation that the Designated Court may go into the question of the applicability of the provisions of TADA independently at the appropriate stage.
186 of 1993 in TADA Spl.
Inspector of Police, DCB CID U III, Bombay, do hereby state on solemn affirmation as under 2 I say that I am Investigating Officer in DCB CID CR No.
738 of 1993 Since, bail has been granted to the appellant in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Application No.
732 735 of 1993, we have adverted to the brief facts of the case CR No.
In February 1992, the DIG of Police Maharashtra Railway Police visited Palghar Police Station and after going through the record of the case was of the opinion that the investigation had number been properly companyducted in CR No.
Petitioner 1 Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and two others read a news item in some local newspaper indicating that they were likely to be arrested in respect of the murder of the deceased Suresh Narsinh Dubey in CR No.
MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR 1, Shri Shiwaji S. Sawant, Sr.
Both the applications were heard and disposed of together.
On 12 7 1993 the Public Prosecutor presented a request of the investigating officer dated 29 6 1993 to the Designated Court seeking extension of time to companyplete the investigation and objections were also filed to the application for bail filed by Hitendra Vishnu Thakur under Section 20 4 of the Act by the Public Prosecutor.
Heard.
It was in this fact situation that the Designated Court rejected the application filed by the appellant under Section 18 of the Act holding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that an offence under the provisions of TADA had been companymitted.
The High Court companysequently dismissed the anticipatory bail application of Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and others but kept effective the order of interim anticipatory bail for a period of one week to enable the applicants to take recourse to further proceedings.
It was, thereafter, that on 5 12 1992 petitioner 1 Hitendra Vishnu Thakur along with one other company accused surrendered before the Director General of Police, Maharashtra.
Another application, TMA No.
With these observations, the criminal appeal directed against the order dated 2 9 1993 in TMA No.
The appeals are companyfined to the limited question whether the appellant ought to have been released under Section 20 4 of TADA read with Section 167 2 CrPC because of the default of the investigating agency to companyplete the investigation and file the charge sheet within the prescribed time.
90 of 1989 and he, therefore, summoned the companyplainant Shyam Sunder Dubey.
The appellant and some of his companyaccused made an application before the Designated Court challenging the validity of sanction accorded by Respondent 2, authorising the Designated Court to take companynisance of the offence against the accused.
His bail application, however, came to be rejected on 16 1 1993 and he surrendered to the bail bonds.
1261 of 1992 in the High Court of Bombay for a declaration that for the reasons stated in the writ petition the provisions of TADA were number attracted to the facts of the case.
Besides reducing the maximum period during which an accused under TADA Could be kept in custody pending investigation from one year to 180 days, the Amendment Act also introduced clause bb to sub section 4 of Section 20 enabling the prosecution to seek extension of time for companypletion of the investigation.
43 of 1993 with effect from 22 5 1993.
Apart from oral arguments even written submissions were filed in support of their respective companytentions regarding the validity or otherwise of the sanction under Section 20 A 2 of TADA by learned companynsel for the parties.
91 of 1993 and Crl.
Criminal Appeal No.
On 1 10 1992, petitioner 1 and others filed Writ Petition No.
1 say and submit that in this case about 15 accused persons who are assailants as well as the main companyspirator including Daud Ibrahim Kaskar, Dubai based don, his henchmen namely, Sunil Sawant, Sham Kishore Garikapatti, Bacchi Pande, Baba Gabrial and others have absconded.
While the matters rested thus, Parliament enacted Amendment Act No.
At the time when TMA No.
The written sanction was filed in the Designated Court on 24 8 1993, while the application challenging the validity of sanction was filed on 6 12 1993.
The Designated Court by its order impugned in these appeals dated 1 7 1993 granted one months time to the investigating agency to file the charge sheet and rejected the appellants application for release on bail.
After numberice to the Public Prosecutor, the Bombay High Court granted interim anticipatory ball to the applicants on 29 9 1992.
Appeal No.
Not satisfied with the order of the High Court of Bombay dated 23 10 1992 petitioner 1 and others filed Special Leave Petition Crl.
90 of 1989 is number companyered by the provisions of TADA and therefore the said case needs to be transferred to a regular companyrt for trial.
After Section 20 of TADA was amended by Act 43 of 1993 the investigating agency invoked the provisions of clause bb of subsection 4 of Section 20 seeking extension of time for companypleting the investigation and filing the charge sheet against the appellant through its application dated 6 7 1993.
2736 of 1992 against the said order of the Bombay High Court.
76 of 1992, when the investigation itself was also number companyplete, read with the evidence adverted to in its order dated 17 7 1993 cannot be said to be unreasonable much less perverse.
During the reinvestigation, some more accused persons were arrested in the said case and remanded to judicial custody on various days.
Sessions Case No.
62 of 1992, the Designated Court has dealt with some of the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation.
Criminal Appeal Nos.
An application, being TMA No.
43 of 1993 would apply to the pending cases i.e. the cases which were pending investigation on the date when the amendment came into force and in which the charge sheet or challan had number been filed till 22 5 1993.
This order has been put in issue in this appeal.
90 of 1989 .
76 of 1992, filed by the petitioner on 29 9 1992 urging that the provisions of TADA were number attracted and that the case be number tried by the Designated Court was also dismissed on 2 9 1993 adopting the reasoning given in the order dated 17 7 1993 in TMA No.
An application was also addressed to the Sessions Judge, Thane under Section 173 8 CrPC by the prosecuting agency seeking permission for reinvestigation after detailing the reasons therein, which was granted by the companyrt.
On 30 9 1992, the prosecution filed an application in the High Court stating that since in the instant case provisions of TADA were applicable the accused companyld number be admitted to anticipatory bail because Section 438 CrPC was excluded in its application to offences under TADA.
The DIG of Police on receipt of the application ordered reinvestigation.
It is also relevant at this stage to refer to the reply affidavit filed by Shri M.W. Deshmukh, the investigating officer, in reply to Criminal Writ Petition No.
1261 of 1992, which had been filed by the appellant stating that the provisions of TADA were number attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case CR No.
While dealing with Criminal Appeal Nos.
90 of 1989 .
On 17 11 1992 the Special Leave Petition Crl.
On 6 7 1993 the petitioner Hitendra Vishnu Thakur filed an application for grant of bail under Section 20 4 of the Act on the ground that 180 days had expired on 4 6 1993 but numbercharge sheet challan had been filed.
736 737 of 1993 These appeals are directed against the order of the Designated Court dated 31 7 1993 in Crl.
90 of 1989 and therefore they approached the Bombay High Court for grant of anticipatory ball on 25 9 1992.
88 of 1991 is pending disposal in that companynection.
On 23 10 1992, the appellant applied for bail to the Designated Court and provisional bail was granted to him.
No.2800 of 45.
Non bailable arrest warrants against the accused were returned as the same companyld number be executed in spite of all efforts.
A numbere was appended to the charge sheet that a supplementary charge sheet against them would be filed after obtaining requisite sanction from the authorities companycerned.
The learned Designated Court by its order dated 2 9 1993, rejected the application holding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused has companymitted the offences under the provisions of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Prevention Act, 1987.
Consequently, the Designated Court, Pune has the exclusive jurisdiction to try the offences under the TADA Act and, therefore, the case against the applicant cannot be transferred to a regular companyrt under Section 18 of the TADA Act.
In the said charge sheet, names of four police officers along with 12 other accused besides the absconding accused were also mentioned.
740 of 1993 while Shanti Bhai Patel is the appellant in Crl.
Some of the statements of the witnesses recorded during the investigation, as referred to in the order of the Designated Court, do indicate that some of the witnesses have deposed to the activities of the appellant and others which companyld be companystrued as offences triable under TADA.
62 of 1992, for grant of bail under Section 20 8 of TADA was dismissed by the Designated Court on 17 7 1993.
The supplementary charge sheet was filed on 13 12 1993 which happened to be the last date for framing of charges vide the directions of this Court in SLP Crl.
Interpoles, CBI, Central Government, State Government has been apprised of the facts of the case in order to book the absconding accused who had gone out of India.
Both the appellants are aggrieved by the rejection of their bail applications filed under Section 20 4 of TADA by the Designated Court vide its order dated 3 8 1993.
62 of 1992.
In its order dated 17 7 1993, in Criminal Misc.
On 4 1 1993 he was remanded to judicial custody.
217 of 1992.
The appellant was working, as Circle Police Inspector, Thane, during the relevant time.
43 of 1993 which came into force on 22 5 1993.
This appeal is preferred against the order of the Designated Court, Pune dated 2 9 1993.
During the investigation, Patrick Frances Truskar and Ananda Ramachandra Patil were arrested in companynection with the said case on 20 10 1989.
86 of 1992 by the Designated Court on 3 8 1993.
Application No.
Appeal No.
The appellant also preferred a bail application before the Designated Court under Section 20 4 of TADA read with Section 167 2 CRPC seeking release on bail on account of the default of the investigating agency to file the charge sheet within the prescribed period.
Subsequently, however, the wife of the deceased met the DIG of Police and presented an application dated 18 5 1992 executed by Shyam Sunder Dubey, the companyplainant.
Special Leave Petition Crl.
93 of 1993.
740 41 of 1993 Ramesh Bhai Patel is the appellant in Crl.
741 of 1993.
Since the investigation was number companyplete and extension had been granted to the investigating agency to further investigate and submit the challan within the extended period, it is obvious that the investigating agency may have recorded some more evidence in the case after 17 7 1993.
2230 of 1993 dated 23 11 1993.
76 of 1992, asserting that the offence in CR No.
76 of 1992 was filed the investigation in the case obviously was going on and it would have been premature for the Designated Court, without scrutiny of the entire material companylected during the investigation, to companye to any firm companyclusion that the case was number triable by the Designated Court and was required to be tried by the regular companyrt.
The appellant was arrested on 22 9 1992.
On being produced before the Magistrate, he was remanded to custody from time to time and on 20 10 1992 he was directed to be produced before the Designated Court since the offence of which he was accused of was one under TADA.
The Designated Court has granted extension to the prosecution to companyplete the investigation and file the challan in the companyrt on an application filed by the Senior Inspector of Police on 14 7 1993.
The application seeking extension of time which was filed before the Designated Court reads as follows Application for extension for further period to file charge sheet in DEB CID CR No.
In the facts and circumstances of the case the view expressed by the Designated Court on 2 9 1993 in TMA No.
Application No.
The appellant filed an application under Section 18 of TADA, being TMA No.
The Amendment Act also introduced a new provision in the form of clause bb providing for grant of extension of time for companypletion of investigation and filing of challan on a report of the public prosecutor indicating the progress of investigation and the specific reasons for detention by the Designated Court, subject however to the maximum period of companypulsory detention of one year.
Leave granted.
This appeal, by special leave, is also filed by Hitendra Vishnu Thakur.
Mr K.G. Bhagat, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellants submitted that the Designated Court fell in error in granting extension to the prosecution on the application of the Senior Inspector of Police without any report from the Special Public Prosecutor and for reasons which are number companytemplated by clause bb of Section 20 4 of TADA.
Application for proclamation has already been filed before the Honble Court.
The brother of the deceased, Shri Shyam Sunder Dubey, on receipt of the information went to Palghar Police Station and a first information report was lodged resulting in the registration of a case CR No.
On 9 10 1989 one Suresh Narsinh Dubey, a Real Estate Developer, was shot dead at about 10.30 a.m. at Nalasopara Railway Station in District Thane in the presence of his brother in law A.S. Tripathi who is the eyewitness.
217 of 1992 which was registered by Byculla Police Station vide CR No.
A charge sheet was filed against them in the Court of Sessions on 8 7 1990.
