CHANDRAYYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has applied for bail before the Special Court. His application was rejected by the Special Court Gadchiroli on 7. 8. 2003. Hence he has filed this appeal.

(2.) ONE of the contentions raised by the appellant before the Special Court was that as required by Section 50 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002, there was a bar in Court taking cognizance of offence without the previous sanction of the Central Government or as the case may be, the State Government. According to the appellant when he applied for bail and when the order of rejection of bail came to be passed, at that time there was no sanction as required by Section 50 and therefore he was entitled for bail.

(3.) THE counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the Division Bench given in Criminal Appeal No. 3/2003 with criminal Appeal No. 679/2002 in Mohmmad Gausuddin s/o Wall Mohammad v. State of Maharashtra, where a similar question arose that about the interpretation of Section 50 and the effect on not obtaining the sanction and the Division Bench ultimately held that in the circumstances of the case accused was entitled for bail, so the accused in that case was granted bail.