HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 360 · Decided: 12-07-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. ANAND, FAIZAN UDDIN

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS. 
JULY 12, 1994 
[DR. A.S. ANAND AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.J 
Terrorists and Dismptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Seclion 3(1) 
read with Section 2(l)(h). 
Terrorism within the meaning of Sub-section ( 1) of Section 3 read with 
Clause (h) of Sub-section ( 1) of Section 2 of TADA means use of violence 
resulting not merely in physical and mental damage lo the victim but also the 
prolonged psychological effect it produces or has potentiality to produce on 
the Society as a whole. 
Terrorists and. Dismptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Section 
20(4). 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973-
Section 167 (as amended by Amendment Act No. 43 of 1993), Section 
167 of the Code read with Section 20( 4) of TADA is not a provision for grant 
of bail but deals with maximum period during which an accused may be kept 
in custody and detention to eit'able the investigating agency to complete the 
investigation and file the charge-sheet, if any, in the Court. 
Terrorists and Dismptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Section 18: 
If the designated court finds that the offence does not even prima facie 
fall under TADA, it must not proceed and must transfer the case to regular 
court under Section 18 of TADA. 
G 
Terrorists and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987-Sub-section 
20(4)(bb}--Sections 167 read with Secs. 173-Code of Criminal Procedure, 
1973. 
If the police fails to complete the investigation and put up a challan 
against the accused in accordance with law under Section 173 Cr.P.C., an 
H indefeasible right to be enlarged on bail accrnes to the accused after the expiry 
360 
H.V. 1HAKUR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
361 
of the maximum period during which an accused can be kept in custodrThe A 
Court is obliged in such a case, to decline die police request for further 
remand except in cases governed by Clauses(bb) of Sub-section ( 4) of Section 
20. 
Temirists and Disniptive Activities (Prevemion) Act, 1987: Section 
20(4) and Section 20(8): 
' ' 
" 
The grounds on which bail may be denied under Sub-sectio11(8) of 
Section 20 of TADA are irrelevant for the consideration of the prayer of 
release on bail on account of the default of the prosecution wider Sub-section 
B 
(4) of Section 20 of TADA. 
C 
Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevemion) Act, 1987: Section 
20-A(2). 
At the stage of sanction for prosecution for an offence under TADA 
only the prima facie case should be established to show that the authority D 
competent to grant sanction had applied its mind to the facts of the case 
before sanction was accorded. 
On 09.10.89 one D was shot dead at 10.30 A.M. at a Railway Station 
in the presence of his brother-in-law, the eye-witness. The F.I.R. was lodged 
by the deceased's brother. Durjng the investigation, two other accused were E 
arrested and charge-sheeted. Trial is pending in the Sessions Court. In 
February, 1992, the D.I.G. of Police concerned during inspection found 
that the case had not been investigated properly. He obtained a complaint 
from the deceased's wife and ordered re-investigation. Permission of the 
Sessions Court was also obtained under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C. More F 
accused were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The petitioner 
and two others read a news item indicating that they were likely to be 
arrested in connection with the case. They approached the High Court for 
anticipatory bail. After notice to the public prosecutor (P.P.), the High 
Court granted interim anticipatory bail. The prosec11tion filed an applica· G 
lion in the High Court stating that since in the instant case provisions of 
TADA were applicable, the accused could not be admitted to anticipatory 
bail because of the exclusion of the provisions of Section 438 of Cr.P.C. in 
respect of offences under TADA. The High Court dismissed the an· 
ticipatory bail application, but kept effective the order of. interim an· 
ticipatory bail for a period of one week to enable the applicants to take H 
362 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP.1 S.C.R. 
A 
recourse to further proceedings. 
B 
c 
Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner for a declaration that TADA 
was not applicable to the facts of the case. The Writ Petition was dismissed 
with the observation that the designated Court under TADA may go into 
the question of the applicability of TADA. Special Leave Petition against 
the order of the High Court was d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.