1994 (2) TMI 323 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds TADA Jurisdiction, Cancels Bail

State of Maharashtra Versus Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed

State of Maharashtra Versus Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed - JT 1994 (2) SC 1, 1994 (1) SCALE 673, (1994) 2 SCC 664, [1994] 2 SCR 42, Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash prosecution under the TADA Act.2. Applicability of the TADA Act to the allegations against the respondent.3. Validity of the respondent's bail granted by the High Court.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to Quash Prosecution under the TADA Act:The primary issue was whether the High Court was empowered to invoke its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the prosecution of the respondent under the TADA Act. The High Court had quashed the proceedings against the respondent, holding that the provisions of the TADA Act were not attracted to the case. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available in cases where it is debatable whether the direct accusation, in conjunction with attendant circumstances, is likely to result in a conviction under the TADA Act. The Supreme Court emphasized that such matters should be addressed within the procedural framework of the TADA Act, including raising objections before the Designated Court and appealing to the Supreme Court as provided under Section 19 of the TADA Act. The High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in this case was deemed unjustified and impermissible.2. Applicability of the TADA Act to the Allegations Against the Respondent:The High Court had concluded that the allegations against the respondent did not attract the provisions of the TADA Act and that the respondent should be prosecuted under the Arms Act instead. The Supreme Court disagreed with this conclusion, noting that the chargesheet included more than just the discovery of six Chinese AK-56 rifles and twelve magazines. The prosecution also alleged the respondent's association with key conspirators and involvement in a larger conspiracy to create unrest and terror. The Supreme Court highlighted that the possession of such sophisticated weapons, along with other circumstances, could signify involvement in terrorist activities, warranting prosecution under the TADA Act. The Supreme Court found the High Court's view on this aspect contrary to law.3. Validity of the Respondent's Bail Granted by the High Court:The High Court had directed the release of the respondent on bail, which was contested by the Additional Solicitor General, arguing that the Designated Court's refusal to grant bail was justified. The Supreme Court agreed, stating that the nature of the accusations and the material on which they were based clearly attracted the provisions of the TADA Act, justifying the refusal of bail. The Supreme Court confirmed the cancellation of the respondent's bail, emphasizing that the trial should proceed under the TADA Act.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court. The prosecution of the respondent in the Designated Court under the TADA Act was to continue, and the cancellation of his bail was confirmed. The High Court's exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the prosecution and grant bail was deemed improper and contrary to law.