( 1 ) RULE. Learned A. P. P. Shri P. R. Abichandani, waives service of Rule.

( 2 ) THE petitioner - accused has filed this 2nd Bail Application after submission of charge sheet. His first Bail Application was permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition before the trial Court after submission of charge sheet. Accordingly, after submission of charge-sheet the petitioner accused once again approached the trial Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 507 of 2002. However, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bharuch, by his impugned Judgment and order dated 28. 6. 2002 rejected the Bail Application of the petitioner - accused on the ground that there is no change in the circumstances after his first Bail Application was rejected by the trial Court and mere filing of charge sheet is no ground to release the accused on Bail. The learned Judge also considered the fact that name of the applicant - accused was clearly mentioned in the F. I. R. Hence, this 2nd Bail Application.

( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel Shri A. D. Shah, appearing for the petitioner - accused firstly submitted that in this case the petitioner is charged for offences u/ss. 153 (A), 427, 295 and 198 I. P. Code and Section 3 of the Explosive Substance Act. Shri Shah submitted that out of these offences except for the offence u/s. 427 I. P. Code the sanction is must. He submitted that in the charge-sheet itself it has been stated that the sanction is already applied way back on 17. 5. 2002 from the competent Authority, but the same is not received so far and therefore in anticipation that the sanction will be granted they have submitted the charge-sheet. He submitted that till such sanction is granted the Court had no jurisdiction to take cognizance in the matter and therefore the petitioner should be enlarged on bail. In support of his submission Shri Shah has tried to rely upon the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of ANIRUDHSINHJI JADEJA V/s. STATE OF GUJARAT, reported in AIR 1995 SC 2390.

( 4 ) IN the case of Anirudhsinh Jadeja (Supra) the accused were in jail for the offences u/ss. 3 and 5 of TADA, 1987. The designated Court denied bail to them. The allegations against them was that on 15. 3. 1995 one Jayantilal Mohanlal Vadodaria, son of elder brother Mohanlal Kalabhai of the complainant was murdered by some assailants near Ashapura Dam at the distance of 3 km. from Gondal Town. So, on receiving the information the complainant went to the scene of offence where a dead body of his nephew Jayantilal was lying with Vespa Scooter of the deceased. The deceased Jayantilal was a leading member of Patel community. Post Mortem revealed that deceased had received Gun shots injuries and also injuries caused by knives. The murderers had come in a white Ambassador Car and fired twice at the deceased and after killing the deceased they were absconding. The point before the Honble Supreme Court in Anirudhsinh Jadeja (supra) was regarding the legality of invocation of TADA. Specific contention was raised before the Honble Supreme Court in that case in S. L. P. filed by the accused that prior approval as required u/s. 20 (A) (1) of the TADA was not taken. The Honble Supreme Court held that Section 20 (A) (1) of TADA was introduced to safeguard the citizen from vexatious prosecution under the TADA and if designated Court had failed to appreciate that if D. S. P. had not given prior approval the case against the accused under TADA was, therefore, nonest. On facts of that case the Honble Supreme Court held that the entire proceeding against the accused under the TADA was vitiated and accordingly the Honble Supreme Court quashed the proceeding. However, it is pertinent to note that while quashing the proceeding the Honble Supreme Court itself made it clear that it would be open to the respondent to proceed against the accused even under TADA in accordance with law.

( 5 ) HAVING observed the aforesaid the Honble Supreme Court further