J. S. VERMA, J. - (1.) By an order dated 18 -8 -1994 made in these special leave petitions by the Division Bench (B. P. Jeevan Reddy and N. P. Singh, JJ.), these matters relating to grant of bail to the petitioner, an accused in the Bombay blasts case being tried by the Designated Court for Greater Bombay, have been referred for decision by a Constitution Bench since certain questions involved in these special leave petitions arise in respect of a large number of persons accused of offences punishable under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as 'the TADA Act'). This is how these matters have come up for decision by this Bench. At the commencement of hearing before us, we had indicated that this Bench would decide only the questions of law involved in the case as indicated in the order of reference and then send back these matters to the appropriate Division Bench for decision on merits in accordance with the answers we give to the questions of law. Accordingly, only those facts which are material for appreciating the questions of law which are being decided by us require mention in this order.
(2.) The questions of law indicated in the said order of reference, to be decided by us, are three, namely - (1) The proper construction of Section 5 of the TADA Act indicating the ingredients of the offence punishable thereunder and the ambit of the defence available to a person accused of that offence; (2) The proper construction of clause (bb) of sub -section (4) of Section 20 of the TADA Act indicating the nature of right of an accused to be released on bail thereunder, on the default to complete investigation within the lime allowed therein; and (3) The proper construction and ambit of sub -section (8) of Section 20 of the TADA Act indicating the scope for bail thereunder.
(3.) The only material facts for answering the above questions are these : The petitioner is one of the several accused persons in Case No. 1 of 1993 being tried in the Designated Court for Greater Bombay in connection with the bomb blasts which look place in Bombay on 12 -3 -1993 killing a large number of persons and causing huge destruction of property. The case of the prosecution against the petitioner, set out in the charge -sheet, is that on 16 -1 -1993 he "knowingly and intentionally procured from accused Anees Ibrahim Kaskar through Sameer Ahmad Hingora, Hanif Kadawala, Baba @ Ibrahim Musa Chouhan, Abu Salem Abdul Qayoom Ansari and Manzoor Ahmed Sayed Ahmed 3 AK -56 rifles, 25 hand grenades and one 9 mm. pistol and cartridges for the purpose of committing terrorist acts. By keeping the AK -56 rifles, hand grenades, pistol and cartridges in his possession willingly, accused Sanjay Dutt facilitated these objectives. Some parts of the rifle, the 9 mm. pistol and 53 rounds of live cartridges were recovered during the course on investigation. Accused Yusuf Mohsin Nullwala, Kersi Bapuji Adenia, Rusi Framrose Mulla, Ajay Yashprakash Marwah, caused wilful destruction of evidence namely 1 AK -56 rifle, one 9 mm. pistol, and cartridges by deliberately removing them from the house of accused Sanjay Dutt, at his instance, with the intention to protect the offender, i.e., Sanjay Dutt from legal consequences and therefore, they are also guilty of the offence under Section 201 IPC.";