LexSANJAY DUTT versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A SANJAY DUTT v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA OCTOBER 16, 1995 B [G.N. RAY, N.P. SINGH AND B.L..HANSARIA, HJ Te1m1ists and Disntptive Activities (Preventio!l) Act, 1987: Bail-Rejection of-Constitution of Central/State's Committees to C review TADA cases-Maharashtra Committee-Review of cases by-Report considered by Central Committee-Categorisation of accused into three categories, last being those who could be released on bail-Bail application for release of twelve accused persons filed includillg that of appellallf:-No objectioll by State as to grallt to baif-Rejection of fresh bail application by D desigllated Cou/1-Appeal--Held : In the circumstances of the case bail should be granted 011 specified conditio11s. E The appellant is facing trial for offences under Terrorists and Dis- ruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 and The Arms Act, 1959. His bail application was rejected by the Designated Court. In the meanwhile pur- suant to. the directions given by this Court in Kartar Si11gh v. State of Punjab, [1994] 3 SCC 569. Review Committees were constituted by the Central as well as State Governments to review the TADA case. Thereafter the Maharashtra State Review Committee examined the case of different accused persons and submitted its report to the Central Review Committee f which opined that Chief Public Prosecutor should bring to the notice of Designated Court the deserving cases for grant of bail. The Chief Public Prosecutor filed a petition before the Designated Court categorising the accused persons in Bombay Blast case into three categories - the third category being the accused \Vho could be released on bail. It was also stated that the State Government had no objection to the 12 accused persons G including the appellant being released on bail. However, appellant's fresh bail application was also rejected by the Designated Court against which this appeal has been preferred. In the affidavit filed before this Court it was stated that the Central Bureau of Investigation carefully scrutinised the cases of all the accused persons and took a policy decision that the H accused persons in the third category could be released on bail and 362 • SUNJAYDUTT v. STA1T<: 363 consequently prosecution had no objection to the grant of bail to these A persons. Allowing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The fact-situation in which the present appeal is being examined is entirely dilTerent from that with which this Court was seized B when on an earlier occasion, this very appellant was before this Court praying for his release on bail, in this very case. So what was stated then in the case of Sanjay Dlltt v. State through CBI, Bombay, (1994] 6 SCC 86; held inapplicable, has ceased to be relevant. As the whole exercise of the Central Review Committee was pursuant to.the direction of this Court in Kwtar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994] 3 SCC 569, referred to, and the Chief Special Public Prosecutor has filed the petition to implement the decision t~ken by that Committee, supplemented by the decision of the CBI, such a petition did not merit rejection. The Designated Court did not examine c the matter in proper perspective. The categorisation of the accused per- sons in three categories being founded on relevant factors, the classifica- D lion was rational. The name of the appellant being in category three, his release on bail is ordered. [367-D, G, El 2. The appellant shall furnish a bond of Rs. 5 lakhs with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the Designated Court; he shall surrender his passport immediately after release; he would not hamper the on going investigation, tamper the evidence, threaten or influence the witnesses. On the happening of any one of these contingencies to the satisfaction of the Designated Court, his bail shall be cancelled. Further, he shall appear before the Designated Court as and when directed. [368-A-B] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 1196 of 1995. From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.95 of the Designated Court in Bombay in Bail Application No. 19/95 in B.B.C. Case No. 1 of 1993. E F G Kapil Sibal, Rajender Singh, V.R. Manohar, C.V. Wadhwa, La!it Bhasin, Man Mohan, Neeraj Sharma, Salish Manshinde, Vineet Kumar, Ms. Nina Gupta and Ms. Reshmi Kathpalia for the Appellant. Altaf Ahmed, Additional Solicitor General, N. Natarajan and P. Parameswaran for the Rcspondenl/State. H 364 out'REME COURT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.