TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Interpretation of TADA provisions and bail requirements clarified by court</h1> <h3>HITENDRA VISHNU THAKUR Versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA</h3> The court clarified the conditions for invoking TADA provisions, emphasizing that only acts meeting specific criteria outlined in Section 3(1) should be ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of Section 3(1) of TADA.2. Retrospective application of the 1993 Amendment to Section 167(2) CrPC.3. Scope of Section 20(4) and Section 20(8) of TADA in granting bail and extending investigation time.Summary:1. Applicability of Section 3(1) of TADA:The court examined when Section 3(1) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) can be invoked. It was argued that the stringent provisions of TADA should only apply to acts that strictly qualify as 'terrorist acts'. The court emphasized that not all criminal activities should be tried under TADA unless they meet the specific criteria outlined in Section 3(1). The court clarified that the intention behind the act, the use of specific weapons, and the resultant impact are crucial for an act to be classified under TADA. The court also cautioned Designated Courts to carefully scrutinize the material before invoking TADA provisions to prevent misuse.2. Retrospective Application of the 1993 Amendment:The court addressed whether the 1993 Amendment to Section 167(2) CrPC, which modified Section 20(4)(b) and introduced Section 20(4)(bb) of TADA, applies retrospectively. It was held that the amendment, being procedural, applies to pending cases where the investigation was ongoing and the charge-sheet had not been filed by the amendment's effective date. The court emphasized that both clauses (b) and (bb) should be harmonized and applied retrospectively to avoid disadvantaging the prosecution and to fulfill the legislative intent.3. Scope of Section 20(4) and Section 20(8) of TADA in Granting Bail:The court elaborated on the conditions under which bail can be granted under Section 20(4) and Section 20(8) of TADA. It was clarified that Section 20(4) deals with the maximum period of custody during investigation, and an accused is entitled to bail if the investigation is not completed within the prescribed period, unless an extension is granted under clause (bb). The court underscored that the Public Prosecutor's report is essential for seeking an extension and must demonstrate the progress of the investigation and justify further detention. The court also highlighted that the considerations for granting bail under Section 20(8) are different and do not control the grant of bail under Section 20(4). The court stressed the importance of issuing notices to the accused or the Public Prosecutor when seeking extensions to ensure fairness and compliance with natural justice principles.Conclusion:The court provided a detailed analysis of the conditions under which TADA provisions can be invoked, the retrospective application of procedural amendments, and the specific requirements for granting bail and extending investigation periods under TADA. The judgments in individual cases were based on these principles, ensuring that the stringent provisions of TADA are applied judiciously and fairly.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
