STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus ANAND CHINTAMAN DIGHE

Citation: [1990] 1 S.C.R. 73 · Decided: 16-01-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. AHMADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

,)., 
\, 
STATE OF MAHARASlITRA 
v. 
ANAND CHINTAMAN DIGHE 
JANUARY 16, 1990. 
A 
[M. FATHIMA BEEVI AND A.M. AHMADI, JJ.] 
B 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Sections 437 and 438-Bail-
Gram of-Factors to be considered. 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: Sec-
lion 20(8)-0ffences under 1he Act-Accused-When could be granted (' 
bail. 
The respondent was a member of a political party. Consequent 
upon the defeat of the party in Mayoral elections held in March, 1989, 
the party felt that there was cross-voting and there were traitors among 
them and the respondent made a declaration that such traitors would 
D 
not be spared. Thereafter the respondent was arrested In connection 
with the murder of one of the Corporators. He was accused of having 
committed offence under Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive 
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, besides offences punishable under 
Sections 148, 149, 120.B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The 
designated court released the respondent on ball while the investigation E' 
was pending. 
This appeal by the State is against the order of the designated 
court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
F 
HELD: 1. Sub-Sectinn (8) of Section 20 of the Act clearly pro· 
vides that unless the court is satisfied for the reasons to be recorded that 
there are reasonable grounds to b~lieve that the respondent Is not 
involved in disruptive activities bail shall ordinarily be refused. 
Even under the provisions of Section 437 and 438 of the Code of, \G 
Criminal Procedure, the powers of the Sessions Judge are not unfet• .,,,;~ 
tered. [7SFf 
2. Where the offenee is of serious nature the Court has to decide 
the question of grant of bail in the light of sueh considerations as tbe 
nature and seriousness of offence, character or the evidence, clrcums-
H 
73 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] I S:C.R. 
lances which are peculiar to the accused, a reasonable possibility of 
presence of the accused not being secured at the trial and the reasonable 
apprehension of witness being tampered with, the larger interest of the 
public or such similar other consideration. [768-C] 
3. In the instant case, the salient principles in granting bail in 
grave crimes have not been taken note of. The Court was obsessed by 
the fact that lhe respondent was associated with a political party and 
was oblivious of the nature of the allegations made against bim and the 
relevant materials indicating that the respondent had been making 
utterances inciting violence. [76DJ 
4. This court would not ordinarily interfere with the discretion of 
the lower court in granting or refusing bail but in cases where bail has 
been granted on irrelevant considerations, such as the status or in-
fluence of the person accused and regardless of the nature of the accusa-
tion and relevancy of materials on record, this Court would not hesitate 
to interfere for the ends of justice. [7SG-H; 76A) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 669 of 1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.5.1989 of the 
Designated Court, Poona in Cr!. Bail Application No. 11of1989. 
G. Ramaswamy, Additional Solicitor General, S.V. Tarkunde 
and A.M. Khanwilkar for the Appellant. 
U.R. Lalit and V.N. Ganpule for the Respondent. 
p 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
FA THIMA BEE VI, J. By the impugned order dated the 18th 
May, 1989 the Designated Court, Pune directed the respondent to be 
released on baiL The respondent was accused of having committed 
offence under Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
G 
(Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') besides 
the offences punishable under Sections 148, 149, 120-B and 302 of the 
Indian Penal Code. 
The respondent was the member of the Shiv Sena Party and the 
Chief of the Thane District Unit. In consequence· of the defeat of the 
If party in Mayoral election held on 20th March, 1989 the party felt that 
J
J 
STATE OF M.P. v. A.C. DIGHE. [FATHIMA BEEVI, J.] 
75 
there was cross-voting and there were traitors among them. There had 
A 
been a declaration by the respondent that such traitors would not be 
spared. The respondent was arrested in connection with the murder of 
one of the Corporators Shridhar Khopkar on 21.4.1989 on registering 
Crime No. 1348/89. 
In releasing the respondent on bail while investigation was pend-
B 
r -
ing, the Designated Court appears to have been influenced by the fact 
f 
that 

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