1996 (1) TMI 429 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of bail by the Designated Court.
2. Effect of the expiry of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA).
3. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
4. Right to bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

Summary:

1. Rejection of Bail by the Designated Court:
The appellants were accused u/s 302 read with 149 IPC and u/s 3(1) and 3(2)(i) of TADA. The Designated Court, Bombay, rejected their bail after considering the allegations and evidence, including ocular testimony, which indicated that the appellants set a house on fire, resulting in multiple deaths. The court found prima facie evidence that the appellants intended to create terror and communal hatred, thus justifying the charges under TADA.

2. Effect of the Expiry of TADA:
The appellants argued that since TADA had lapsed, they could not be tried under its provisions, and the conditions for bail u/s 20(8) of TADA should be ignored. However, the court held that the expiry of TADA did not affect ongoing proceedings due to the saving provision in sub-section (4) of Section 1 of TADA, which is similar to Section 6 of the General Clauses Act. This provision ensures that investigations and legal proceedings continue as if TADA had not expired.

3. Applicability of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897:
The court clarified that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act applies only when a Central Act is repealed, not when a temporary Act expires. However, TADA itself contained a saving provision in sub-section (4) of Section 1, ensuring the continuation of proceedings initiated under it.

4. Right to Bail under Proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of CrPC:
The appellants claimed they were entitled to bail due to the default in submitting the charge-sheet within the statutory period. The court noted that although the appellants were entitled to bail under proviso (a) to Section 167(2) of CrPC read with Section 20(4)(b) of TADA, they did not apply for bail on this ground before the charge-sheet was filed. The court emphasized that this right must be exercised before the charge-sheet is filed, as it does not survive post-filing. The appellants, having not applied for bail within the statutory period, forfeited their right to be released on this ground.

Conclusion:
The appeals were dismissed, and the court directed that the trial of the appellants be expedited. The judgment underscores the importance of timely applications for bail and clarifies the legal position regarding the continuation of proceedings under expired temporary statutes like TADA.