IMPORTANT POINT
Power of high Court invoke its jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the view taken by Designated Court, is not exercisable in cases where it may be debatable whether the direct accusation made in conjunction with the attending circumstances. If proved to be true, is likely to result in conviction for an offence under TADA Act.

JUDGMENT

J.S. Verma, J. - This appeals by a certificate under Article 134 A of the Constitution of India granted by the Bombay High Court to appeal against its judgment dated 18.1.1994 in Criminal Writ Petition No. 902 of 1993 quashing the proceedings under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (heceinafter referred to as the "TADA Act) against respondent Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed on the ground that lie provisions of TADA -Act are not attracted to the allegations against him. In the chargesheet dated 4.11.1993 filed in the Designated Court, Greater Bombay alleging the commission of offences punishable under the TADA Act by the 189 accused named therein, respondent Abdul Hamid is shown as accused No. 61. In the impugned judgment dated 18.1.1994, the High Court has held that the provisions of TADA Act are not attracted to the case against the respondent and consequently the proceedings against him before the Designated Court under the TADA Act have been quashed. Consequently, the High Court has directed the release of the petitioner on bail on terms mentioned in its judgment.

2. The city of Bombay was rocked by a series of bomb blasts on 12.3.1993 which killed 257 persons, maimed another more than 700 persons and destroyed property worth about Rs. 27 crares. These bomb blasts occurred in important government and public sector buildings of stock exchange, Air India, Sahar International Airport, several five star hotels and busy commercial localities such as Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and Century Bazar. Petrol pumps adjoining important locations were also the target of these blasts. The bomb blasts were accompanied by explosion of hand grenades in sensitive areas intended to incite communal violence which caused riot in certain areas. These incidents were a part of carefully planned strategy calculated to terrorist the governments in the State as well as at the Centre and to incite communal violence.

3. It was during the investigation into these crimes that respondent Abdul Hamid was arrested on 18.4.1993. It is alleged that on the same day soon after his arrest, the respondent gave information which led to discovery of six Chinese AK-56 rifles and twelve magazines kept concealed in a gunny bag buried three-and-a-half feet deep ii1the compound of Picnic Guest House behind New Juhu Grand Hotel, Bombay, which the respondent dug out from that place and handed over to the police. It is alleged that a large number of such rifles were smuggled into the country through the Porbunder Port along with other explosives, arms and ammunition, as a part of the conspiracy to create country-wide unrest and terror of which the Bombay bomb blasts were a part. In substance, this is the allegation against the persons named as accused, including respondent Abdul Hamid, in the charge-sheet dated 4.11.1993 filed in the Designated Court for trial of the accused persons for commission of offences under the TADA Act

4. After arrest of the accused as aforesaid on 18.4.1993 alleging commission of offences under the TADA Act, an application for his release on bail was filed in the Designated Court on 24.5 .1993. During the pendency of that bail application, the said Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 902 of 1993 was filed in the Bombay High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the resort to TADA Act for prosecution of the respondent. The High Court made a direction on 14.7.1993 to the Designated Court to dispose of respondents bail application. On 7.8.1993, the Designated Court made the order rejecting respondents bail application, taking the view that the allegations against the respondent indicated prima facie the applicability of provisions of TADA Act. Thereafter on 4.11.1993, the chargesheet was filed in the Designated Court. The High Court then heard the Writ Petition and by the impugned judgment dated 18.1.1994 came to the conclusion as aforesaid that the provisions of TADA Act are not attracted to the case of the r