NEW DELHI: After 15 months’ incarceration at Bombay’s Arthur Road Central Jail, film star Sanjay Dutt secured bail from the Supreme Court on Oct. 16.

Justices G.N. Ray, N.P. Singh and B.J. Hansaria ordered Sanjay’s re- lease on furnishing a security of Rs. five lakh and the surrender of his passport.

The three judges in their order criticized TADA Judges J.N. Patel for rejecting Sanjay’s bail application even after the Central Review Committee had recommended it. They said that as per the Kartar Singh case judgment last year (upholding the validity of TADA) the Central Review Committee had put Sanjay among the 12 out of the 134 accused who could be released on bail.

Category I referred to those accused (about 34) who were already on bail, approvers and the accused, who had already been discharged. Category II contained names of certain accused listed by CBI those named by approvers as being involved in the conspiracy, proclaimed offenders, who had absconded, and lastly accused likely to abscond.

Category III list contained 12 accused persons (including Sanjay Dutt), whose release on bail the CBI had recommended as they were neither named by the approvers, nor had absconded at any time and who were unlikely to abscond or tamper with the evidence.

The three judges said they found the categorization completely rational and observed that TADA judge Patel’s refusal of bail to Sanjay Dutt when he figured in List III was not justified. Sanjay Dutt’s fight for bail after his arrest in April 1993 succeeded almost immediately when the Bombay High Court granted interim bail to him but asked him to get it finalized by the TADA Court. However, he failed in his attempt to get TADA judge Patel to rescue himself from the trial on the ground that the judge was biased. He failed again at the apex court to prove this point and Judge Patel sent him to jail in July last year.

About 13 months ago, Sanjay failed again to convince a Constitution Bench that mere possession of unauthorized arms by him was not enough and the prosecution had to prove his further nexus with militant or disruptive activity. He also failed to secure bail on the plea that he had been held for more than 180 days by which time the investigations had to be completed. The five apex court judges held that on the interpretation of Section 20(4)(bb) of the TADA Act the requirement of notice to the accused before granting extension beyond the prescribed period of 180 days did not mean a written notice to the accused giving reasons therein.

The five judges had said the production of the accused at that time in Court, informing him that the question of extension of the period for completing the investigation was being considered was alone sufficient. A couple of months later Sanjay again failed to convince a three-judge division bench headed by Justice Jeevan Reddy that he could be re- leased on bail on the criteria outlined by the Constitution Bench.

Article extracted from this publication >> October 20, 1995