S.N. THAPA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 354 · Decided: 05-04-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
S.N. THAPA 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
APRIL 5, 1994 
(AM. AHMADI AND R.M. SAHA!, J.l.] 
Terrorist and Disntptive Activities Act, 1987-S ecs. 3, 4, 5 and 
20(8)-Bail Application-Bombay Bomb Blast Case-Smuggling of anns, am-
munition and explosive and transportating to Bombay-Appellant, an Addi-
tional Coliector of Customs prosernted-No legal evidence to implicate 
appellant-<Jrder of release on interim bail. 
This appeal is filed against the order passed by iile Disignated Court 
dismissing the bail application filed u/s 20(8) TADA. The appellant, Addi-
tional Collector of Customs is an acmsed in the Bombay Bomb Blast Case. 
The basic allegation against the appellant in the chargesheet is that by 
colluding mth the conspirators he permitted the arms and explosives to 
be smuggled into the country. The Designated Court recorded a finding 
that there was no direct evidence to implicate the appellant in the con· 
spiracy, yet it rejected the bail application as according to it there was 
E mate1ial to draw an inference that the appellant rendered assistance to the 
smugglers. 
The appellant urged that the inference drawn by the Designated 
Court that the appellant rendered assistance to the smugglers was based 
on no material on record. The appeal was opposed by the State and it was 
F 
urged that the chargesheet has been submitted and in case such accused 
were released on bail it would create a very demoralising effect on the 
prosecution. 
G 
Disposing of the matter, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The tragedy that took place in March 1993, was one of 
the ghastliest in the history of this country. Further a crime of such 
magnitude was possible due to illegal smuggling of huge quantity of arms 
and explasives. That such smuggling was possible due to connivance of the 
officers of the Customs Department is prima facie established. Yet it 
H cannot be the sole ground to keep every officer of the Customs Department 
354 
THAPA v. STATEOFMAHARASHTRA[SAHAl,J.] 
355 
behind the bars unless there was some material to justify it. 
A 
\ 
[356-G-H; 357-A] 
t 
1.2. No material could be pointed out which could establish that the 
appellant was responsible in the importation and transportation of the 
contraband to Bombay. The basic allegation against the appellant is that 
he by colluding with the conspirators permittted the goods to be smuggled B 
in large scale cannot be disputed. But the question is whether there is any 
material which could establish even strong suspicion against the appellant 
that he was aware of the nature of conspiracy. [357-F] 
1.3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and on the material, 
as at present, it appears there was no legal evidence to prima facie establish C 
that the appellant had assisted either in the smuggling of the goods or of 
its transportation to Bombay. [358-D-E] 
1.4. However, since the chargesheet has been submitted, the Desig-
nated Court should reconsider the matter with a view to finding out if there D 
is any evidence collected in the course of investigation which would show 
the involvement of the appellant with the crime in question. [358-E-F] 
1.5. The appellant is directed to the released on interim bail, subject 
to furnishing of a personal bond. [358-F-G] 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
245 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.9.93 of the Designated Court 
at Pune in Cr!. Misc. A. No. 55 of 1990. 
Ram Jathmalani, S.B. Jaisinghani, S.P. Goyal and Ms. Lala Krish-
namurthy for the Appellant. 
Altaf Ahmed, S.M. Jadhav and A.S. Bhasme for the Respondent. 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
R.M. SAHA!, J. This appeal is directed against the order dated 18th 
September 1993 passed by the Designated Court, Pune dismissing the bail 
application filed by the appellant under Section 20(8) of the Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 
F 
G 
'TADA'). 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
356 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1994] 3 S.C.R. 
2. The appellant is an Additional Collector of Customs. He is an 
accused against whom a case was registered under various sections of 
Indian Penal Code including Sections 3, 4 and 5 of TADA. The case relates 
to what has come to be known as Bombay Bomb Blast case. It is undisputed 
that between the last week of January and first fortnight of February 1993 
huge quantity of arms ammunition and explosives were smuggled in the 
country. According to prosecution the la

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