ABDUL HAMID HAJI MOHAMMED Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is one Abdul Hamid Haji Mohammed @ Hamid Chuva. He has preferred the present Writ Petition invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India inter alia praying for quashing the proceedings initiated against him under Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (28 of 1987) (hereinafter referred to as "the TADA Act"), on the ground that the provisions of the said Act are not applicable to the fact which are alleged against him. He has also prayed for grant of bail. On the night between 17/18th April, 1993 three persons, which included the petitioner, came to be arrested. The other two who were arrested were Mohamed Hussein Umer Merchant and Mohamed Farooq Mohamed Yusuf Batki. It was found that the three accused were connected with the property known as Picnic Guest House in Juhu. The accused Mohamed Hussein Umer Merchant is the owner of the said property. Apart from him one Eijaz is said to have a share in the property to the extent of 30%. The accused Mohamed Farooq Mohamed Yusuf Batki is a tenant in possession of the property. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he was employed by Mohamed Farooq Mohamed Yusuf Batki to develop the said property. The petitioner being the developer had submitted plans to the Bombay Municipal Corporation for sanction. Mohamed Farooq Mohamed Yusuf Batki is said to have employed security guards through a security contractor to guard the property. As far as the property in question is concerned, we have a description of it in an application for remand dated 20th April, 1993. The property is described as under:-

(2.) AFTER the three accused were arrested between 12. 30 to 1. 30 p. m. in the night between 17th and 18th April, 1993 the petitioner was interrogated. During the interrogation the petitioner broke down and agreed to make a statement. He stated that he will discover certain arms which he had concealed in the aforesaid property. Consequent upon the statement, 6 AK rifles and 12 empty Magazines were recovered after digging a portion of the ground within the compound of the said property. Provisions of TADA Act were made applicable to the accused. All the accused were remanded to police custody and thereafter to judicial custody. So far as the other two accused were concerned they were released on bail. As far as the present petitioner is concerned he applied for bail. However, by an order passed by the Designated Court on 4th June, 1993 the petitioner was remanded to judicial custody and his application for bail was adjourned to a later date. . Thereafter, by a judgment and order dated 2nd August, 1993 the learned Judge of the Designated Court was pleased to reject his application for bail.

(3.) THE learned Judge of the trial Court has inter alia set out the case of the prosecution as under :---