UNION OF INDIA versus MOHD. SADIQ RATHER

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 81 · Decided: 17-11-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
v. 
MOHD. SADIQ RATHER 
NOVEMBER 17, 1992 
[M.H. KANIA, CJ. N.M. KASLIWAL AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Criminal Law: Ten-orist and Dismptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 
1987-Sections 20(8) and (9)-Bail-Conditions necessary for releas~ 
Charge sheet/Police report submitted before Designated Court-Bail applica-
tion of accused-Considered and accused released on bail by another Desig 
noted Court without pentsing Charge- sheet/Police Report-Whether proper. 
Non-obstante clauses in different sections-Effect of-Whether provi-
sions of Act have over-riding effect over provisions and procedure prescribed 
under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and Evidence Act, 1872. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
The respondent, against whom and 14 others a charge sheet was filed 
before the Designated Court under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities 
(Prevention) Act, 1987, filed an application for bail before that Designated 
Court. This application was transferred to another Designated Court for 
disposal. The application was opposed by the prosecution, on grounds, E 
inter alia, that the respondent was instrumental in the abduction and 
confinement of the Vice-Chancellor of a University and his Private 
Secretary and as the evidence collected disclosed the involvement of the 
respondent, he should not be released on bail. However, the Designated 
Court directed the release of the resp·ondent on bail, on the finding, that F 
there were reasonable grounds for believing that the respondent was not 
guilty of the offence under the Act. 
In the appeal before this Court against the Designated Court's 
order, on behalf of the appellant-Union of India it was contended that after 
the conclusion of the investigation, charge-sheet, which should be deemed G 
to be a Police Report within the meaning of sub-!!ection (2) of Section 173 
of the Criminal Code, 1973, was forwarded to the Designated Court 
concerned, but the application for bail was heard and disposed of by 
another Designated Court, without perusing the Police Report so sub-
mitted. 
H 
81 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
On behalf of the respondent, it was contended that non~ availability 
B 
c 
of the 'Police Report submi~ted after investigatiop should not affect in '.'my 
manner the order directing the release of the respondent. 
Disposing of the appeal, by special leave, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. On .a plain reading of sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the 
Terrorist. and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, it is dear that 
before a person who has been accused of an offence punishable under the 
Act is released on bail, two conditions must be fulfulled; (a) an opportunity 
must be given to the Public Prosecutor to oppose the application for such 
release, (b) .the Court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds 
for believing that the said accused is not guilty of such offence. Therefore, 
an application for bail filed on behalf of a person, who has been accused 
of an offence punishable under the Act has t~ be examined carefully and 
cautiously on the basis of charges levelled in the first information report, 
D and the evidence collected in course of the investigation. These conditions 
are in addition to those under the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. This 
position has been made explicit by sub-section (9) of Section 20 of the Act. 
(84-H; SS-A, BJ 
1.2. The Police Report submitted after the investigation of an alleged 
E 
offence is not just mere expression of the opinion of· the Investigating 
officer having no connection or nexus with the materials collected during 
the investigation. In view of sub-section (5) of Section 173 of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 1973, when such report is in respect of a case to which 
Section 170 of the Code is applicable i.e. where it appears to the lnvestigat· 
F 
ing Officer 'that there is sufficient evidence or reasonable ground •. .' the 
Investigating Officer should forward to the Magistrate along with the 
report all documents and the statements recorded under Section 161 of 
the Code. The framers of the Code have vested powers in the Magistrate 
under Section 190(1)(b) to take cognizance of any offence 11pon such a 
Police Report. If Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence on the basis 
G of a Police Report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code, such a 
Police Report cannot be held to be irrelevant while considering an applica-
tion for bail under sub-section (8) of Section 20 of the Act, as t

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