Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : M.N.RAO, N.D.PATNAIK
Kondaplli Seetharamyya - Appellant
Versus
Government Of A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09-12-94
TADA ACT - SECTION 167(2) - BAIL - CHARGE SHEET - INVESTIGATION - MALA FIDE - POWER OF HIGH COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 - TERRORIST AND DISRUPTIVE ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1987 - SECTION 3, 4 - ANDHRA PRADESH PUBLIC SECURITY ACT, 1992 - SECTION 8 - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 - SECTION 120-B, 167(2), 20(4).
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, accused in a case registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA) and Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Security Act, was arrested on 20th March, 1993. A charge sheet was filed against him along with two others on 19-3-1994 under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA Act and Section 8 of the A.P. Public Security Act. Another charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused for offences under Section 120-B, I.P.C., read with Section 3 (1) (3) and (4) of TADA Act and Section 8 of the A.P. Public Security Act. The petitioner filed a bail application before the designated Court, which was dismissed. He then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or similar order or direction and declare the detention of the petitioner as illegal and enlarge the petitioner on bail as required by Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge sheet was filed within one year from the date of arrest, as required by Section 20(4) of TADA Act, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The court also found that there was no mala fide exercise of power by the investigating officer in filing the charge sheets, and that the petitioner was not entitled to bail under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner was entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the charge sheet was not filed within 180 days from the date of arrest? 2. Whether there was mala fide exercise of power by the investigating officer in filing the charge sheets? 3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to bail under Article 226 of the Constitution?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the proviso to Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, as amended by Section 20(4) of TADA Act, allows the designated Court to extend the period of detention of an accused up to one year, if it is satisfied that it is not possible to complete the investigation within the said period of 180 days. In the present case, the charge sheet was filed within one year from the date of arrest, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to be released on bail under Section 167(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 2. The court held that there was no mala fide exercise of power by the investigating officer in filing the charge sheets. The court noted that the investigating officer had filed the charge sheets after completing the investigation in the manner prescribed by the Criminal Code, and that there was no evidence to suggest that the charge sheets were filed with an oblique motive or for an improper purpose. 3. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to bail under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court noted that the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain bail applications and grant bail, but that this power should be exercised most sparingly and only in rare and appropriate cases in extreme circumstances. The court found that the present case was not such a case, and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to bail under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THE petitioner, Sri Kondapalli Seetharamayya, who was accused in Crime No. 1 of 1993, Investigation Cell, Intelligence, Hyderabad, registered under Sections 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (in short TADA) and Section 8 of A. P. Public Security Act, was arrested on 20th March, 1993 at Anamanapudi village, Krishna district. Subsequently he was produced before the designated Court, i. e. Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and remanded to Judicial custody and is now lodged in the Central Jail, Musheerabad, Secunderabad. On 19-3-1994 a charge sheet was filed against him along with two others under Sections 3 and 4 of TADA Act and Section 8 of the A. P. Public Security Act in the Court of the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad which is the designated Court under the TADA Act. The designated Court had taken cognizance of the case and registered it as Sessions Case No. 130 of 1994 and made over to the IV Additional Sessions Judge, which is also a designated Court under the TADA Act. On 23-3-1994 another charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner and other accused for offences under Section 120-B, I. P. C. , read with Section 3 (1) (3) and (4) of TADA Act and Section 8 of the A. P. Public Security Act.
( 2 ) THE petitioner filed bail application on 5-5-1994 before the designated Court to release him on bail which was dismissed. Subsequently he has filed this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or similar order or direction and declare the detention of the petitioner as illegal and enlarge the petitioner on bail as required by Section 167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
( 3 ) BEFORE going into the respective contentions of the parties we would like to refer to the relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and the TADA Act.
( 4 ) SECTION 167 (2), Cr. P. C. , says that the Magistrate to whom an accused person is forwarded under this Section may, whether he has or has not jurisdiction to try the case, from time to time authorise the detention of the accused in such custody as such Magistrate thinks fit, for a term not exceeding 15 days on the whole. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 167, Cr. P. C. , reads as follows : "provided that - (a) the Magistrate may authorise the detention of the accused person, otherwise than in the custody of the police, beyond the period of fifteen days, if he is satisfied that adequate grounds exist for doing so, but no Magistrate shall authorise the detention of the accused person in custody under this paragraph for a total period exceeding, - (i) ninety days, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years; (ii) sixty days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, and, on the expiry of the said period of ninety days, or sixty days, as the case may be, the accused persons shall be released on bail if he is prepared to and does furnish bail, and every person released on bail under this sub-section shall be deemed to be so released under the provision of Chapter XXXIII for the purpose of that Chapter". Section 20 sub-section (4) of the TADA Act as amended by Act 43 of 1993 says that "section 167 of the Code shall apply in relation to a case involving an offence punishable under this Act or any rule made thereunder subject to the modifications that - " (a) the reference in sub-section (1) thereof to "judicial Magistrate" shall be construed as a reference to "judicial Magistrate or Executive Magistrate or Special Executive Magistrate; (b) the reference in sub-section (2) thereof to "fifteen days", "ninety days" and "sixty days", wherever they occur, shall be construed as reference to "sixty days" (one hundred and eighty days) and (one hundred and eighty days) respectively; and (bb) in sub-section (2), after the proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
