SANJAYDUTT versus STATE THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 729 · Decided: 18-08-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, N.P. SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SANJAYDUTI 
v. 
STATE THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY 
AUGUST 18, 1994 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
Terrorists & Disrnptive Activities (Preve11tio11) Act, 1987-Arrest a11d 
Dete11ti01t-Refere11ce to the Comtitutio11 Benclt-Reaso11s foi-/11terpretatio11 
of Sec. 5--Effect on large 11umber of case:.-Setting the issue authoritative-
1)'--0biter Dicta of Supreme Coun-Bindi11g upon other couns. 
Ten-onst and Disrnptive Activities (Prevention) Ac~ 1987-Sec. 5-Ar-
rest a11d Dete11tio1t- Unauthorised possession of specified am1s and ammu11i-
rio11-Naw with the object of use-Whether necessary-To be autltoritatively 
settled by the Constitution Bench. 
Terrorist a11d DiSrnptive Activities (Preve11tio11) Act, 1987-Sec. 
24(4)(b) read with Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.-Default in completion of inves-
tigation within 180 days-W/1ether indefeasible right in accused to be released 
011 bail-To be aurhoritatively and expeditiously settled by the Constitution 
Bench. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
Sanjay Dutt, one of the accused in the Bombay Blast Case was 
arrested and detained pending investigation by CBI u/s S of TADA for 
possession of illegal arms. However, the charge sheet was filed beyond six 
months of his arrest. The Speeial Leave Petition was filed for grant of bail F 
on the ground that mere possession of illegal arms was no offence and that 
Section S could be invoked only if there was some material to show that 
the person who was possessed of the arms intended it to be used for 
terrorist or disruptionist activity. Further that the filing of charge sheet 
beyond 180 days gave the accused an indefeasible right of bail on account 
of the 'default' by the investigating agency in the completion of the inves- G 
ligation within the maximum period prescibed. 
Denying bail, but recommending that the questions raised in the SLP 
be decided expeditiously and authoritatively by the Constitution Bench, 
this Court 
H 
729 
A 
B 
730 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
HELD : 1.1. Since even the obiter dicta of the Supreme Court ls:1 
binding upon other Courts in the country and because the interpretation · 
placed upon Sec. S amounted to reading words into that section that were 
not there and as the interpretation of Sec!ion 5 one way or the other was' 
likely to affect a large number of cases in the country it was appropriate 
for the Constitution Bench to pronounce on the matter and authoritatively 
settle the issue. (735-C] 
Kartar Singh v. State of Punfab, (1994) JT 2 423, referred to. 
2.1. Investigation should b" concluded within 180 days of the arrest 
C but the court, on being satisfied \lith the progress of the investigation and 
the reasons for the continued detention of the accused was empowered to 
extend the said period to one yeair. There was no provision for issuance of 
notice to' the accused while extending the period of detention. If the 
reasoning 'and logic underlying the observation in Hitendra Vishnu ; 
D 17iakur's case were extended to Section 167(2) of cr:P.C., ii would mean 
E 
F 
that every time the Magistrate authorised the detenntion of the accused in 
custody beyond 15 days, he W'oulcl be obliged to give notice to the accused 
and hear him. Such a course was neither feasible nor warranted. The view 
taken by the Division Bench needed re-consideration. (737-F to H, 738-A] 
Hitendera Vishnu 17iakur & Ors. etc. etc. v. State of Maharashtra & 
Ors., JT (1994) 4 SC 255, referred to. 
2.2. Section 167 Cr.P.C. authorised detention of an accused in cus-
tody during investigation. After the expiry of the statutory period men-
tioned therein, if the investigation was not concluded the accused was 
entitled to be released on bail an1l that would be deemed to be under the 
provisions of Chapter XXXIII of the Code. The right to be released on bail 
under proviso to Section 167(2) accrued to an accused at a particular 
stage. But could it be held to be an indefeasible right which could he 
G exercised at any stage including the stage of trial? The meaning and effect 
of the said provision needed to be authoritatively pronounced upon. 
(738-C, D, F] 
Ram Narayan Singh v. The State of Delhi & Ors., (1953] SCR 652; 
Naranjan Singh Nathawan v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1952] SCR 395 and 
H A.K. Gopalan v. Govt. of India, (1966) 2 SCR 427, referred to. 
SAN JAY DUTT v. C.B.I. BOMBAY 
731 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : S.L.P. (Crl.) Nos. 1834-35 A 
of 1994. 
From the Judgment and.Order dated 4.7.94 of the Designated Court 
at Bomb
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.