ORDER

B.L. Hansarja, J. - Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against an order dated 11-9-1995 passed by the Designated Court constituted under the Terrorists and -Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as TADA) rejecting the prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant, who is facing trial for offences under TADA and Arms Act. The prayer for bail made on behalf of the appellant had been rejected earlier by the Designated Court.

3. It appears that a fresh application for bail was made before the Designated Court on 28-8-1995 primarily on the grounds:

(1) Pursuant to direction given by a Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab1. Screening/Review Committees constituted by the State Government as well as by the Central Government had examined the cases of accused persons in custody for offences under TADA, including that of the appellant in connection with the Bombay bomb blast case.

(2) After review of the cases of such accused persons including that of the appellant, the Chief Public Prosecutor had filed a petition before the Designated Court on 24-8-1995 saying that the State Government had no objection to the 12 accused named in the said petition including the appellant, being released on bail.

4. According to Mr. Sibal, who appears on behalf of the appellant, because of the aforesaid developments the appellant should have been released on bail irrespective of the fact that the trial is still pending.

5. In the case of Kartar Singh (supra) the Constitution Bench said in paragraph 265:

"In order to ensure higher level of scrutiny and applicability of TADA Act, there must be a Screening Committee or a Review Committee constituted by the central Government consisting of the Home Secretary, Law. Secretary and other concerned Secretaries of the various departments to review all the TADA cases instituted by the Central Government as well as to have a quarterly administrative review, reviewing the States action in the application of the TADA provisions in the respective States and the incidental questions arising in relation thereto. Similarly, there must be a Screening or Review Committee at the level constituted by the respective States consisting of the Chief Secretary, Home Secretary, Law Secretary, Director General of Police (Law and Order) arid other officials as the respective Government may think it fit, to review, the action of the enforcing authorities under the Act and screen the cases registered under the provisions of the Act and decide the, further course of action in every matter and so on.”

It was pointed out that in view of the direction given by this Court in Kartar Singh’s case, the Designated Court itself in its order dated 24-4-1995 observed that there was much substance in the submission made by the learned Advocates appearing for the accused that it was obligatory on the part of the State as well as the General Government to place their case before the Review Committee so constituted and obtain its report so that the Public prosecutor could act on it. Thereafter the Maharashtra State Review Committee, after examining the cases of different accused persons in the Bombay bomb blast submitted its report to the Central Review Committee constituted pursuant to the direction given in Kartar Singhs case. From the copy, of the minutes" of the Central Review Committee, it appears that the committee consisting of the Home Secretary, the law Secretary and the Director of CBI, examined the cases of 134 accused persons of Bombay bomb blast case oh different dates between 27-6-1995 and 4-8-1995. The Committee after considering the recommendations of the Maharashtra State Review Committee arid other materials in connection with different accused persons, was of the opinion that the Chief Public Prosecutor should bring to the notice of the Designated Court, the facts and circumstances in respect of different accused persons so that the