http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: SANJAY DUTT

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

DATE OF JUDGMENT16/10/1995

BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) BENCH: RAY, G.N. (J) SINGH N.P. (J) HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1995 SCC  (6) 189        JT 1995 (7)   378  1995 SCALE  (5)759

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      This appeal  has been  filed  against  an  order  dated 11.9.1995 passed  by the  Designated Court constituted under the Terrorists  and Disruptive  Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter  referred  to  as  ’TADA’)  rejecting  the prayer for  bail made  on behalf  of the  appellant, who  is facing trial  for offences  under TADA  and  Arms  Act.  The prayer for  bail made  on behalf  of the  appellant had been rejected earlier by the Designated Court.      It appears  that a  fresh application for bail was made before the Designated Court      It appears  that a freesh application for bail was made before the                  Designated  Court  on  28.8.1995 Primarily on the grounds:- (1)   Pursuant to direction given by a Constitution Bench of this Court  in the case of Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569, Screening/Review Committees constituted by the State  Government as  well as  by the Central Government had examined  the cases  of accused  persons in  custody for offences under  TADA, including  that of  the  appellant  in connection with the Bombay bomb blast case. (2)   After  review of  the cases  of such  accused  persons including that  of the  appellant, the  Chief Public  Public Prosecutor had  filed a petition before the Designated Court on  24.8.1995  saying  that  the  State  Government  had  no objection to  the 12  accused named  in  the  said  petition including the appellant, being relesed on bail.      According to  Mr. Sibal,  who appeared on behalf of the appellant,  because   of  the   aforesaid  developments  the appellant should  have been released on bail irrespective of the fact that the trial is still pending.      In the  case of  Kartar Singh(supra)  the  Constitution Bench said in paragraph 265:

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

         "In order to ensure higher level of      scrutiny and  applicability of TADA Act,      there must be a Screening Committee or a      Review  Committee   constituted  by  the      Central  Government  consisting  of  the      Home Secretary,  Law Secretary and other      concerned  Secretaries  of  the  various      Departments to review all the TADA cases      instituted by  the Central Government as      well   as    to   have    a    quarterly      administrative  review,   reviewing  the      States’ action in the application of the      TADA  provisions   in   the   respective      States,  and  the  incidental  questions      arising in  relation thereto. Similarly,      there must  be  a  Screening  or  Review      Committee at the State level constituted      by the  respective States  consisting of      the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Law      Secretary,  Director-General  of  Police      (Law and  Order) and  other officials as      the respective  Government may  think it      fit,  to   review  the   action  of  the      enforcing authorities  under the Act and      screen the  cases  registerd  under  the      provisions of  the Act  and  decide  the      further course of action in every matter      and so on."      It was  pointed out that in view of the direction given by this  Court in  Kartar Singh’s case, the Designated Court itself in  its order dated 24.4.1995 observed that there was much  substance  in  the  submission  made  by  the  learned Advocates appearing  for the  accused that it was obligatory on the  part of  the State as well as the Central Government to  place   their  case   before  the  Review  Committee  so constituted  and  obtain  its  report  so  that  the  Public Prosecutor could act on it. Thereafter the Maharashtra State Review Committee,  after examining  the cases  of  different accused persons  in the  Bombay  bomb  blast  submitted  its report to  the Central Review Committee constituted pursuant to the direction given in Kartar Singh’s case. From the copy of the  minutes of  the Central Review Committee, it appears that the committee consisting of the Home Secretary, the Law Secretary and the Director of CBI, examined the cases of 134 accused persons of Bombay bomb blast case on different dates between  27.6.1995   and  4.8.1995.   The  Committee   after considering the  recommendations of  the  Maharashtra  State Review Committee  and other  materials  in  connection  with different accused persons, was of the opinion that the Chief Public  Prosecutor   should  bring  to  the  notice  of  the Designated Court,  the facts and circumstances in respect of different accused  persons so  that the Court could consider granting bail in deserving cases.      On 9.8.1995 the Designated Court in its order said that it was  proper on  the part of the Public Prosecutor to seek instructions and  file an  application before the said court mentioning the  names of the accused persons and the reasons on the basis f Which the State had no objection for granting them bail  so that  the court can reconsider their cases and grant bail  on the  ground that the Public Prosecutor had no objection in  granting them  bail  as  a  matter  of  policy adopted by the State.      As the  investigation of the Bombay bomb blast case had been  taken   up  by  the  CBI,  the  Chief  Special  Public Prosecutor on  basis of  the instructions  received from CBI

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

and the  State Government  filed the  aforesaid petition  on 24.8.1995. In  the said  petition the accused persons in the Bombay bomb  blast case  have been  put in  three categories namely (i)  Who had  already been granted bail or discharged or had  been absconding.  (ii) Who  had either been named by the two  approvers or those who had absconded or were likely to abscond  or tamper  with  evidence. (iii) Accused persons who could be released on bail. The names of three categories of the  accused were  mentioned in the Annexures enclosed to the said  petition. In  Annexure No.  G,  the  names  of  12 accused persons  were given  including the name of appellant in respect of whom it was stated that they could be released on bail.      On 25.9.1995,  this Court  while issuing  notice to the State Government  gave a  direction to file an affidavit The State Government  gave a  direction  to  file  an  affidavit indicating     Whether  the   cases  of   the  accused  were specifically    considered  by the  CBI on  the question  of granting bail  and as to whether on the basis of instruction received from  CBI, a  petition was  filed  by  the  Special Public Prosecutor  on 24.8.1995 before the Designated Court. An affidavit  has been  filed on  behalf of  the  respondent which has  been  sworn  by  the  joint  Director  &  Special Inspector General  of Police,  CBI, Special  Task Force, New Delhi. After  giving the background of the case, it has been stated in the said affidavit that in view of the order dated 9.8.1995 passed by the Designated Court saying that it would be proper  on the  part of  the learned Public Prosecutor to seek instructions  and file  an application before the Court mentioning the  names of the accused persons and the reasons on the  basis of  which  the  State  had  no  objection  for granting the names of the accused persons and the reasons on the basis  of which  the State had no objection for granting bail to  them, the  CBI examined  in consultation  with  the Bombay Police  cases of  the accused  persons  who  were  in custody  in  connection  with  the  Bombay  bomb  blast  and classified them  into the  categories to arrive at a list of accused for  whom no objection to release them on bail could be filed before the Court. Thereafter it has been stated:           "Therefore,    the     CBI    after      carefully, scrutinizing the cases of all      the accused  in custody,  took a  policy      decision  after  consulting  the  Bombay      Police that  the  accused  listed  under      Category No. III can be released on bail      and   instructed    the   Chief   Public      Prosecutor to  bring it to the notice of      Designated Court,  that the  Prosecution      has no  objection to grant bail to these      persons. Accordingly,  no objection  for      release on bail on the bail applications      No. 19  to 30  of 1995 filed by these 12      accused listed under Category No. III is      given by the CBI."      Mr. Sibal  submitted that as the cases of the appellant has been  reviewed by  the Central Review Committee. and has been examined  by the CBI in terms of the direction given by the Constitution  Bench of this Court in Kartar Singh’s case (supra), the  Designated Court  should have directed release of the appellant on bail and there was no occasion to reject the prayer  for bail on the grounds on which the said prayer had been  rejected earlier.  Mr. Altaf  Ahmad,  the  learned Additional Solicitor  General, who appeared for the State of Maharashtra, also took the same stand.      From the  aforesaid narration,  it is  clear  that  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

fact-situation in which the present appeal is being examined is entirely  different from  that with  which this Court was seizedwhen on  an earlier  occasion, this very appellant was before this  Court praying  for his release on bail, in this Court praying  for his  release on bail, in this  very case. So, what  was stated  then in  the case  of Sanjay  Dutt vs. State through  C.B.I., Bombay (1994) 6 SCC 86, has ceased to be relevant.      It is  submitted by  Mr.Sibal that  as the  case of the appellant had been scrutinied by Mr. Siball that as the case of the  appellant had been scrutinised by the Central Review Committee and  the C.B.I  pursuant to  the direction  of the Constitution Bench  of this  Court in  Kartar  Singh’s  case (supra) following  which the Chief Special Public Prosecutor was directed  to file  the  petition  praying  that  accused persons named  in category  III be  released on bail, clause (b) of  sub-section  (8)  of  Section  20  of  TADA  is  not attracted.      In our  view, as  the whole  exercise  of  the  Central Review Committee was pursuant to the direction of this Court in Kartar  Singh’s case (supra) and the Chief Special Public Prosecutor had  filed the  petition in question to implement the decision  taken by  that Committee,  supplemented by the decision  taken  by  that  Committee,  supplemented  by  the decision  of  the  CBI,  such,  a  petition  did  not  merit rejection. The  learned Designated Court did not examine the matter in  proper perspective.  The  categorisation  of  the accused  persons   in  three  categories  being  founded  on relevant factors,  we are  satisfed that  the classification was rational.  The name  of the  appellant being in category III, we order for his release on bail.      The  appellant  shall  be  released  on  bail,  on  his furnishing a  bond of  Rs. 5 (Five ) Lakhs with two sureties of like  amount to the satisfaction of the Designated Court. The appellant shall surrender his passport immediately after release. He  would not  hamper the  on going  investigation, tamper the evidence, threaten or influence the witnesses. On the happening  of any  one of  these  contingencies  to  the satisfaction of  the Designated  Court, his  bail  shall  be cancelled. Further,  he shall  appear before  the Designated Court as  and when  directed. He  shall also comply with any other direction of the said Court.      The appeal is allowed accordingly.