THE STATE OF GUJARAT versus GADHVI RAMBHAI NATHABHAI AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 163 · Decided: 20-06-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. SAWANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
J 
THE STATE OF GUJARAT 
A 
v. 
GADHVI RAMBHAI NATHABHAI AND ORS. ETC. 
JUNE 20, 1994 
[P.B. SAWANT AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.) 
B 
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987: 
Sections 5 and 21}-Prosecution under TADA-Bail-Grant of-Desig-
nated Cowt to find out whether there· are reasonable grounds for believing C 
that accused persons were guilty of an offence under TADA-Not to exercise 
power of Trial Court-Not to weigh materials collected during investiga-
tion-Granting bail otherwise would amount to acquittal even before the con-
clusion of investigation. 
According to the prosecution on receipt of information that accused- D 
respondents had smuggled arms and ammunitions, a police raid was 
conducted at the residential premises of the accused-respondents and 
large quantities of arms and ammunitions of foreign origin were recovered. 
Huge amount of cash to an extent of more than 2 crores was also recovered. 
It was alleged that the accused-respondents were the main landing agents E 
of smugglers controlling the activities from Dubai. They were charged 
under various provisions of the Arms Act, TADA Act and Section 135 of 
the Customs Act. 
The accused-respondents were released on bail by the designated 
Court, against which the State preferred the present appeal by. special 
leave. 
Appellant-State contended that the accused-respondents were freely 
distributing arms, ammunitions and explosives on a very large scale in 
F 
States of Punjab, Assam and Kashmir. 
G 
Allowing the appeals, and setting aside the order granting bail, this 
Court 
HELD : 1. Instead of finding out as to whether there were reasonable 
grounds for believing that the accused persons were not guilty of an offence H 
163 
164 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
under the TADA Act, the Designated Court has virtually purported to 
acquit the accused-respondents of the charges levelled in respect of con· 
travention of Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the TADA Act. While exercising the 
power to grant bail, the Designated Court is not expected to exercise the 
power of the Trial Court and record a finding which is expected to be 
B recorded at the conclusion of the trial. [167-E-F-GJ 
2. It is true that for the purpose of grant of bail, the framers of the 
TADA Act require the Designated Court to be satisfied that there were 
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused concerned was not guilty 
of such offence but this power cannot be exercised for grant of bail in a 
C manner which amounts virtually to an order of acquittal, giving benefit of 
doubt to the accused person after weighing the evidence collected during 
the investigation or produced before the Court. At that stage the Desig· 
nated Court is expected to apply its mind as to whether accepting the 
allegations made on behalf of the prosecution on their face, there are 
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused concerned was not 
D guilty of the offence. The Designated Court is not required to weigh the 
material collected during the investigation. [167-H; 168-A-B-C) 
3.1. It will not be proper for this Court to express opinion on the 
merits of the case while considering the question as to whether the Desig· 
E nated Court was justified in coming to the conclusion that there were no 
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused-respondents were guilty 
of any of. the offences under the Act because that is bound to prejudice the 
parties. [168-D-E) 
3.2 The Designated Court should not have directed release of the 
F 
accused-respondents on bail. [168-E-F) 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Criminal Appeal 
Nos. 357-358 of 1994. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 4.9.93 of Sessions Judge desig-
G nated Court, Jamnagar (Gujarat) in Crimiqal Misc. (Bail) Application No. 
583 of 1993. 
Altaf Ahmad, Additional Solicitor General, Ms. MeenaJcshi Arora, 
Anip Sachthey and Nigam Shukla for the appellant. 
H 
Ram Jethmalani, Uday Kumar Sagar, P.H. Parekh, S. Fazal and 
• 
STATE OF GUJARAT v. G.R.NATHABHAI[N.P.SINGH,J.] 
165 
Rajesh Kumar for the Respondents. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
N.P. SINGH, J. Leave granted. 
These appeals have been filed on behalf of the State of Gujarat B 
against orders passed by the Designated Court under the Terrorist and 
Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 
'TADA Act') directing release of the Respondents Gadhvi Rambhai 
Nathabhai, Karu Rambhai Gadhvi, Hitesh Vajshi Pindariya

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