GURUMEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard Mr. Jain at length several times in this case. He wants to raise certain more points in this habeas corpus petition. We cannot grant any further time as we had already heard Mr. Jain several times in this case on the last time having felt that this Court was reluctant to entertain the petition on the ground of maintainability in this Court as there were several questions involved which were within the exclusive domane of their Lordships of the Supreme Court, he wanted time to back instructions to withdraw the petition. He submits that he has no instructions to withdraw the same and wants further time to argue the matter. We regret we would not grant any further time.

(2.) Petitioner was arrested by the Rajasthan Police in Ganga Nagar in the Month of Aug., 1985 and was handed over to CBI, Jodhpur for investigation. He is in custody ever since. His case was investigated by the CBI and till then the remand was being given by the learned Addl. CJM, CBI Cases, Jaipur . The petitioner moved the petition challenging the remand orders on various grounds. The petitioner's case was investigated by the CBI and CBI finding no case against them filed final report before the Designated Court, Rajasthan. The learned judge of the Designated.Court was not satisfied with the findings arrived at by the Investigating Officer and took cognizance of the various offences against the accused and remanded them to judicial custody. The petitioner filed the bail application before the learned Designated Court and this Court also under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. which did not find favour in the Court and the same was rejected. The petitioner filed this habeas corpus petition and challenged the vires of the several provisions of the Act mainly on the ground that TADA Act is subversive of fundamental rights as enshrined in the Constitution of India as well as the principles of the Constitution. The submission is that though the Act has been made for speedy trial of certain offences in-terrorist affected areas and the matters connected therewith yet ever since 1989 the accused is in jail and nothing has been done so far despite the fact that CBI who had investigated the case did not find any case for proceeding against the petitioner. The further submission of the learned counsel is that when there is no case made out on facts, this Court has ample jurisdiction to entertain the bail application and grant the same during the pendency of the hapeas corpus petition. Learned counsel has cited various cases also .

(3.) learned Addl. Advocate General, appearing for the State submits that charges have already been framed in this case and 11 witnesses have been examined on behalf of the prosecution and there being the mix questions of law and facts, having been raised in this habeas corpus petition, this Court should not entertain the same and if the habeas corpus petition is not maintainable then it is open to the petitioner to go to the Supreme Court and move an application for bail under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. or Sec. 20(8) of the TADA Act.