1988 (3) TMI 447 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court reaffirms bail jurisdiction limits under anti-terrorism law, directs reassessment by Designated Courts

Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Menon Versus State Of Gujarat

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's lack of jurisdiction to grant bail under the Code for individuals accused under the Terrorist & Disruptive ... - Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction and power of the High Court to grant bail u/s 439 or u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.2. Restraint on the power of Designated Courts to grant bail under s. 20(8) of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987.Summary:1. Jurisdiction and Power of the High Court:The Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether the High Court has jurisdiction to grant bail to individuals accused under ss. 3 and 4 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (the Act), using its powers u/s 439 or u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The High Court had previously held that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain such bail applications due to the provisions of the Act. The Supreme Court upheld this view, stating that the Act is a special law that excludes the jurisdiction of the High Court in such matters. The Court emphasized that the Designated Courts created under the Act are not subordinate to the High Court, and the Act provides a complete procedure for the trial of offences under it, thereby excluding the application of the Code to the extent it is inconsistent with the Act.2. Restraint on the Power of Designated Courts:The Supreme Court examined the limitations placed on the power of Designated Courts to grant bail under s. 20(8) of the Act. This section imposes stringent conditions for granting bail, requiring that the Public Prosecutor be given an opportunity to oppose the application and that the court must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The Court highlighted that these limitations are in addition to those under the Code or any other law. The Designated Courts must carefully scrutinize the facts and circumstances of each case to determine whether the provisions of the Act apply and whether the accused is entitled to bail, keeping in view the constraints of s. 20(8).Merits of the Cases:The Supreme Court noted that the Designated Courts had not carefully considered the facts and circumstances in rejecting the bail applications and had done so mechanically. The cases fell into three categories: communal riots, incidents of physical violence resulting in communal riots, and cases connected with trade-union activities. The Court directed the Designated Courts to reconsider each case on its merits, to determine whether the acts alleged fall within the purview of ss. 3 and/or 4 of the Act, and if so, whether the accused are entitled to bail under the constraints of s. 20(8). If the acts do not fall within these sections, the Designated Courts should transfer the cases to ordinary criminal courts.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision that it had no jurisdiction to grant bail under s. 439 or s. 482 of the Code. However, it allowed the appeal in part by setting aside the orders of the Designated Courts that had dismissed the bail applications and directed them to reconsider the applications on their merits, keeping in view the limitations under s. 20(8) of the Act. The accused persons who had been granted bail by the Supreme Court were allowed to remain on bail until their applications were reconsidered by the Designated Courts.