The State of Punjab Vs. Kewal Singh & Anr.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1988.
(In SLP No. 173/88)
(In SLP No. 173/88)
Petitioner: The State of Punjab
Respondent: Kewal Singh & Anr.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. of 1988.
(In SLP No. 173/88)
(In SLP No. 173/88)
Judges: A.P. SEN & B.C. RAY, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 18, 1988
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Bail
Terrorists & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987:
Sections 3 and 4 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Section 439 – For offences under the Act, the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under section 439 of Cr.P.C. – Respondents to move the Designated Court for grant of bail afresh.
Cases Reffered:
1. Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat, JT 1988(1) S.C.539 = 1988 (2) SCC 271.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. In this appeal by special leave, the only question involved is as to the legality and propriety of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated January 4, 1988 directing the release of the respondent-accused persons on bail.
2. At about 6.45 a.m., on October 3, 1986 five/six persons wearing police uniforms came in a jeep No.PAT 471 entered the GOs Mess at Jalandhar and made attempt on the life of Shri J.F. Riberio, the then Director-General of Police who along with his wife Smt. Ribeiro was having a stroll in the lawn. In the encounter that followed two police personnel, keeping guard at the Mess, lost their lives. The accused persons ultimately escaped after an encounter by firing shots. The Designated Court, Jalandhar by its order dated March 20, 1987 granted bail to the accused Kulwant Singh on the ground that no role was attributed to him and it could not be said at that stage, if an offence under ss.3 and 4 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was made our against him. It, however, rejected the application for bail filed by the remaining accused persons. Thereupon, the respondents moved the High Court under s.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail. A learned Single Judge by his order dated January 4, 1988 directed that respondent-accused persons be also enlarged on bail since bail had been granted to the co-accused Kulwant Singh against whom the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is of the same type. We are of the view that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under s.439 of the Code. See : Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat* (1988) 2 SCC 271. We accordingly grant leave, set aside the order passed by the High Court releasing the respondents on bail and direct that they be taken into custody forthwith.
3. We however wish to make it clear that the respondents may move the Designated Court for grant of bail afresh. The Designated Court shall deal with such application for bail, if filed, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai’s case.
1. In this appeal by special leave, the only question involved is as to the legality and propriety of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dated January 4, 1988 directing the release of the respondent-accused persons on bail.
2. At about 6.45 a.m., on October 3, 1986 five/six persons wearing police uniforms came in a jeep No.PAT 471 entered the GOs Mess at Jalandhar and made attempt on the life of Shri J.F. Riberio, the then Director-General of Police who along with his wife Smt. Ribeiro was having a stroll in the lawn. In the encounter that followed two police personnel, keeping guard at the Mess, lost their lives. The accused persons ultimately escaped after an encounter by firing shots. The Designated Court, Jalandhar by its order dated March 20, 1987 granted bail to the accused Kulwant Singh on the ground that no role was attributed to him and it could not be said at that stage, if an offence under ss.3 and 4 of the Terrorist & Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 was made our against him. It, however, rejected the application for bail filed by the remaining accused persons. Thereupon, the respondents moved the High Court under s.439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail. A learned Single Judge by his order dated January 4, 1988 directed that respondent-accused persons be also enlarged on bail since bail had been granted to the co-accused Kulwant Singh against whom the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer is of the same type. We are of the view that the High Court had no jurisdiction to entertain an application for bail under s.439 of the Code. See : Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon & Ors. v. State of Gujarat* (1988) 2 SCC 271. We accordingly grant leave, set aside the order passed by the High Court releasing the respondents on bail and direct that they be taken into custody forthwith.
3. We however wish to make it clear that the respondents may move the Designated Court for grant of bail afresh. The Designated Court shall deal with such application for bail, if filed, in the light of the principles laid down by this Court in Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai’s case.
