JUDGMENT

HANSARIA, J.

(1) BOMBAY of yesterday, Mumbai of today: financial capital of the nation. It woke as usual on 12/3/1993. People started for their places of work not knowing what was in store for them. The terrorists and/or disruptionists, bent on breaking the backbone of the nation (for reasons which need not be gone into) had, however, hatched a well laid-out conspiracy to cripple the country by striking at its financial nerve. As Bombay set down to work, blasting of bombs, almost simultaneously, took place at important centres of commercial activities like the Stock Exchange, Air India, Zaveri Bazar, Katha Bazar and many luxurious hotels. A shocked Bombay and a stunned nation first tried to provide succour to the victims as much as possible and then wanted to know the magnitude of the loss of life and property. It surpassed all imagination, as it was ultimately found that the blasts left more than 250 persons dead, 730 injured and property worth about Rs. 27 crores destroyed. By all counts, it was thus a great tragedy; and revolting also, as it was man-made.

(2) ALL right-thinking persons and well-wishers of the nation started asking why it happened? How could it happen? We are not concerned in these cases with why, but with how. The gigantic task led the Bombay police, despite its capability, to seek assistance of the CBI. An arduous and painstaking investigation by a team of dedicated officials showed that the aforesaid bomb blasts were a result of a deep-rooted conspiracy - concerted action of many, guided either by greed or vengeance. The finale of investigation consisted in charge-sheeting 145 persons (of whom 38 were shown as absconders) under various S. of the Penal Code and the Terrorists And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA), hereinafter "the Act" also. The Designated court constituted under Section 9 of the Act came to be seized of the matter and by its impugned order of 10/9/1995 it has framed charges against 127 persons, discharging at the same time 26. One died and two became approvers. (The total thus comes to 146.)

(3) OF the charged accused, four: (1 Abu Asim Azmi; (2 Amjad Aziz Meharbaksh; (3 Raju alias Rajucode Jain; and (4 Somnath Thapa have approached this court having felt aggrieved at their having not been discharged. The State of Maharashtra has approached the court seeking cancellation of bail granted to appellant Thapa.

(4) WE were fortunate to have leading criminal lawyers of the country to assist us in the matter inasmuch as Shri Ram Jethmalani appeared for Raju and Moolchand, Shri Rajinder Singh for Abu Asim Azmi, Shri R.K. Jain for Amjad Aziz and Shri Shirodkar for appellant Thapa. The State was represented by Additional Solicitor General, Shri K.T.S. Tuisi. Lengthy arguments were advanced by the learned counsel to sustain the stands taken by them. We put on record our appreciation for the able assistance rendered by all.

(5) THE appeals call for examination of three questions of law. These are:

(A) What are the ingredients of "criminal conspiracy - as defined in Section120-A of the Penal Code?

(B) When can charges be framed?

(C) What is the effect of repeal of TADA?

(6) AFTER understanding and explaining the legal position, we would examine the cases of individual appellants and would see whether any of them deserves to be discharged. We would then express our view whether bail of Thapa has to be cancelled and whether Moolchand has to be released on bail.

ESSENTIAL ingredients of criminal conspiracy

(7) IT would be apposite to note at the threshold that S. 120-A and 120-B, which are the two S. in Ch. V-A of the Code, came to be introduced by Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1913. The Statement of Objects and Reasons stated that a need was felt for the same to make conspiracy a substantive offence. In doing so the common law of England was borne in mind.

(8) SECTION 120-A defines crimina