VINOD SHANKER DAVE, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of the State.
(2.) THIS bail application is in a case under Section 3/4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as 'the Act). A report was lodged at Police Station, Anoopgarh on June 5, 1985 against the petitioner by S.H.O. Sita Ram, wherein certain allegations were levelled against various persons, which I will refrain from mentioning in the case for various reasons, except that there was alleged to be an encounter with those persons. In pursuance of the investigation of this FIR, the accused -petitioner was arrested and was charge sheeted. The charge against the petitioner was that he had brought a Granthi from Gurdwara in Chak 11 -A of Police Station, Hanumangarh, who used to incite people. The accused was forwarded for trial before the Designated Court, Ajmer for offence under Section 3/4 of the Act. The petitioner moved a bail application before the Judge, Designated Court, Ajmer, which was rejected. Thereafter the petitioner has approached this Court for bail under Section 439 Cr.PC. Under Sub -section (5) of Section 17 of the Act no person accused of an offence punishable under this Act or Rules made thereunder, if in custody, be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release and after so opposed, the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of offence and is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. The present application was filed as early as February 17, 1986 with an advance copy to the Public Prosecutor and was heard on February 18, 1986 on which date this Court directed the case diary to be called for. Since the evidence was sought to be recorded in between, the case was adjourned from time to time and at one stage though the witnesses were present in the Court, they were not sought to be examined by the Public Prosecutor on the ground that he is unable to identify the witnesses. That was an unfortunate situation for which this Court passed an order on March 19, 1986. Thereafter the main witnesses sought to be examined by the prosecution were produced before the Court and their statements have been recorded.
(3.) HAVING gone through the statements of these witnesses I am of the opinion that the case is one which falls within the ambit of Section 17(5) of the Act that there are grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of offence prima facie on the material existing till date and, therefore, he is entitled to the indulgence of this Court. I may mention here that it is an unfortunate situation that first the Investigating Agency did not co -operate in the trial as mentioned in the order -sheet dated March 19, 1986 and then all the four witnesses produced have turned hostile and it is but for this reason that I am inclined to grant bail, besides this nothing has been said by Public Prosecutor that accused is likely to repeat the offence if released on bail.;