( 1 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the Judgment and order dated March 24, 1987 passed by the Designated Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) at Narol, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 116 of 1987, rejecting the application for releasing the applicants on bail, the applicants have filed this application under S. 439 and/or 482 of the Cr. P. C. to release them on bail.

( 2 ) THE applicants and other persons are alleged to have committed the offences punishable under Ss. 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 504, 324, 323, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, S. 27 of the Arms Act and Ss. 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985, (hereinafter referred to as The Terrorist Act" ). The incident took place on March 10, 1987. The applicants were arrested on the same day. The applicants filed an application before the Designated Court for releasing them on bail. The Designated Court arrived at the conclusion that prima facie the acts committed by the accused constitute an offence punishable under S. 3 and/or 4 of the Terrorist Act. The Designated Court held that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accused are responsible for the offence punishable under S. 3 of the Terrorist Act and, therefore, under the provisions of section 17 (5) they cannot be released on bail.

( 3 ) WHEN this matter was called out before the learned single Judge, a preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the State of Gujarat that against the order dated March 24, 1987 passed by the Designated Court under the Terrorist Act, the application under S. 439 or 482 of the Cr. P. C. is not maintainable before the High Court. It was further pointed out that under section 16 of the Terrorist Act the High Court has no jurisdiction to entertain any application filed on behalf of the applicants against whom the allegations are for the offence punishable under S. 3 and/or 4 of the Terrorist Act. The learned Single Judge referred the whole matter to the Division Bench and for deciding the question whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain application under S. 439 or 482 of the Cr. P. C. in view of the provisions of the Terrorist Act.

( 4 ) FOR deciding the question whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under S. 439 or 482 of the Cr. P. C. in a case where the allegations against the accused are under the provisions of the Terrorist Act, it would be necessary to refer to certain provisions of the Terrorist Act.

( 5 ) THE Terrorist Act is framed for a specific object for making special provisions for the prevention of, and for coping with, terrorist and disruptive activities and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. Its operation is limited for a period of two years from the date of its commencement. Section 2 (1) (b) of the Terrorist Act defines the phrase "designated Court" meaning thereby a Designated Court constituted under S. 7 of the Terrorist Act. Section 2 (1) (d) of the Terrorist Act defines "high Court" in relation to a Designated Court and states that "high Court", in relation to a Designated Court, means the High Court within the territorial limits of whose jurisdiction such Designated Court is proposed to be, or is constituted. Section 2 (1) (e) of the Terrorist Act defines "public Prosecutor" meaning thereby a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor appointed under S. 11 and includes any person acting under the directions of the Public Prosecutor. Section 7 of the Terrorist Act provides that the State Government may for the whole or any part of the State constitute one or more Designated Courts. The Designated Court shall be presided over by a Judge to be appointed by the State Government with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

( 6 ) SECTION 9 of the Terrorist Act provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, every offence punishable under any provision of this Act or any rule ma