LexANUSUYABEN SADASHIV JADAV AND ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[20081 16 S.C.R. 900
A
ANUSUYABEN SADASHiV JADAV AND ANR.
''j-
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
(Crl. M.P. No. 5643-5647 of 2007)
B
DECEMBER 1, 2008
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJ., R.V. RAVEENORAN AND
t>ALVEER BHANDARI; JJ.]
-f-
BAIL:
c
Applications for bail by accused of POTA and oth(3r
offences - HELD: In the light of judgment of Supreme Court
upholding constitutionality of ss.2(3) and (5) of Prevention of
Terrorism (Repeal) Act and the deemed withdrawal of cases
D under POTA; bail applications filed by accused have to be
considered afresh - In all these cases wherever Review
Committee has recorded its opinion that.there is no prima
-4
facie case for proceeding against accused, they are not to be
tried under provisio(ls of. POTA - However,· these accused
E have also been charged with several non-PO TA offences and
these offences will have to be -tried by regular Sessions .
Judges (or CBI Court) - By virtue of Section 33 of the PO TA,
the Sessions Judge has to proceed with these cases as if he
had taken cognizance of these offences - The POTA Special
F
Judges before whom cases of applicants are. pending are
directed to send all those cases to respective Sessions Judge
within a period of one month of receipt of a copy of this order
- This is subject to the order, if ariy, that may be passed by
any competent court against the opinion of Central POTA
Review Committee·- All these petitions/applications for bail!
G fmpleadment are permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to
move for bail before the Court of Session concerned after the
,;>..._
records are received on transfer - In· the event of filing such
applications, Sessions Judge shall consider the same on
merits untrammelled by the observations, if any, made by
H
900
1
ANUSUYABEN SADASHIV JADAV AND ANR. v.UNION OF 901
INDIA AND ORS.
superior courts in' liny bail application filed by the respective A
petitioners - POTA Case No.12 against Crime N0.6 of 2003
in the Crime Branch, Ahmedabad city and POTA Case No.10
against Crime No.272103 in Ellisbtidge Police Station, C.B.I.
Court, on transfer are to be tried by the Sessions Judge
having jurisdiction - It has been stated that these petitioners
B
are und{Jr-trial prisoners since April, 2003 - The respectivf!
Sessions Judge will consider this fact and dispose of the
matters as expeditiously as possible - Prevention of
Terrorism Act, 2002 - s.33 - Prevention of Terrorism (Repeal)
Act, 2004 - ss. 2(3) and (5) - Transfer of cases pending before c
Special Courts under POTA to regular Court of Session.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Crl. M.P. Nos.
5643-5647 of 2007.
IN
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1651-1652 of 2008.
WITH
D
Crl. M.P. No. 4506/2007@ Crl. A. No.1113/2005, 5639-5642,
564a-49/2007, 5981-5986/2007, 8315/2007 and 15724-15725/ E
2008 IN Crl.A. Nos.1651-1652/2008.
Sheela Goel for the Petitioners.
Sushil Kumar, Sandhya Goswami (for B.K. Prasad)
Sushma Suri, P. Parmeswaran, Hemantika Wahi, Pinky Behra,
F
K. Enatoli Serna, Somnath, Kamini Jaiswal, Nitya
Ramakrishnan, Trideep Pais (for M/S. K.J. John & Co.) for the
Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
ORDER
CRL.M.P.NOS.4506/2007@ CRL.A.No.1113/2005, CRL.
G
M.P. NOS.5639, 5640, 5641 AND 5642 OF 2007 @
CRL.A.NOS.1651-1652/2008, which are connected cases, are
H
902
SUPREME COURT REi=>bFff§
A
also taken on board, at the f~tjuest of learned counsei.
2. These are tJall applicatit>hstappii'eatiofi§ fGr
impleadment by the accused petitioners filed in POT A/criminal
cases pending on the files of Special POTA Judge; Sabarmati,
Ahmedabad· and other co.urts in regard Hf f'QTA cases
B
registered with Godhra police station, Crime Brancll,
Ahm~d~baa t?!lty and ~llisbridge Pol.ice Station, Ahmadabad.
In some oHhese ca§~§. bail §~~li@atl9n§ .WE!Jre rejected by the
Special Judge and in s6fii@ ~§ses th@ sEim~ were rejected by·
the High. Court and in some GfH@t §Ei§es by this Court.
·
c
3; Subsequently the Prevefltlsn of T errodsm. (Repeal) Act,
2004 (for short 'the Repealing Act') was enscted. Certain
provisions of the said Act were challenged. This Court, by
judgment dated 21.15.266~; Uph@ltl the validity 'of Section 2(3)
o and (5) of the Repealing Act iiihd alsa jj§ssed the following
directions :
E
F
G
1.
"the judgments under challenge ta ttie extent they
declare Section 2(3) and (5) of the Repealing Aot ·
are not unconstitutional, are upheld;
2.
·the judgments undet ap~eal aExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.