STATE OF MAHARASHTRA versus ANAND CHINTAMAN DIGHE

Citation: [1991] 2 S.C.R. 619 · Decided: 02-05-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANGANATH MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
A 
v. 
ANAND CHINTAMAN DIGHE 
MAY2, 1991 
[RANGANATH MISRA, CJ., KULDIP SINGH AND 
B 
P.B. SAWANT, JJ.] 
Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
Sections 3 and 4-Bail-Grant of-By the Designated Court-Validity 
of-Appreciation of evidence collected at the investigating stage, fore-
closing the trial-Whether proper. 
The respondent was arrested by the police in connection with the 
murder of a Corporator, nnder Sections 147, 148, 149, 302 read· with 
120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist 
and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. The prosecution 
alleged that the respondent conspired and hatched the plot to murder 
the deceased. This was based on the respondent's repeated statements 
to the Press, which were also published in the local newspaper/ 
magazine and interview given to another paper, dubbing those party 
Corporators who had voted against the respondent's party candidates 
for the offices of the Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the local civic body, 
resulting in their defeat as traitors and threatening them with death. 
The Designated Court, released the respondent on bail, but this 
Court cancelled the bail. Thereafter, the respondent moved another 
application for bail before the Designated Court, which granted bail on 
the view that from the newspaper reports it could not be assumed or 
inferred that the respondent was in any manner involved in the conspi-
racy, that there was no justification to record the First Information 
Report, that the statements of witnesses recorded by the investigating 
officer, could not be relied upon. 
Allowing the appeal preferred by the State, this Court· 
HELD: 1: 1 The police Investigation prima facie shows that mafia-
type terror and fear psychosis was created which led to the cold-blooded 
murder of the deceased. The Judge, Designated Court acted illegally in 
appreciating the statements of witnesses and material collected by the 
investigating officer at the·investigaiion stage. He should have dealt 
with the same in accordance with law. [ 623F] 
1.2 The Judge virtually pre-empted the trial by delivering the 
judgment oo the culpability _of respondent. The Jndge grossly erred in 
(il9 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
620 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 2 S.C.R. 
fore-closing the trial by pre-judging the evidence which was yet to come 
on record. l'jo doubt, while cancelling the bail order, this Court 
observed that the cancellation of bail was without pre-judice to the 
rights of the respondent to move the Designated-Court for bail at any 
subsequent stage, but that was only in the event of any further evidence 
being recorded by the court or any fresh material being made available 
during the investigation or before the court. This Court also directed 
that it was necessary for the Designated-Court to consider further mate-
rial collected by the investigating agency, by recording statements of 
witnesses. The Designated-Court did not record any evidence and there 
was no fresh material available before the Court. The Judge, Desi-
gnated-Court, by putting his own gloss over the same material has 
again granted bail to the res:iondent. The manner in which the Judge 
has dealt with the matter cannot be appreciated. [623D-E] 
1.3 Tlli' bail granted to the respondent is accordingly cancelled. I 623G I 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
0 
No. 336 of 199 I. 
E 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.2. 1990 of the Designated 
Court, Pune in Crl. Misc. Application No. 5 of 1990. 
V.V. Vage, V.N. Patil and A.S. Bhasme for the Appellant. 
R.K. Jain, P.M. Hegde, Satish Samant and Kailash Vasdev for 
the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
KULDIP SINGH, J. Special Leave granted. 
Shridhar Khopkar a Shiv Sena Corporator in the Municipal 
Corporation Thane was murdered on April 21, 1989. The First Infor· 
mation Report was lodged at Waghle Police Station Thane on the 
same date. Anand Chintaman Dighe, the respondent before us, was 
arrested by the police· in connection with the said case on charges 
G 
under sections 147, 148, 149, 302 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal 
~ 
H 
Code and sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1987. The allegations against Dighe are that he 
conspired and hatched the plot to murder Shridhar Khopkar. 
The prosecution case is that election to the office of Mayor and 
Deputy Mayor, Municipal Corporation T!Jan

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