D K Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS bail application has been filed under Section 17 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (here in after referred to as the' Act, 1985') read with Section 439 Cr. P.C.

(2.) THE petitioner is an accused in sessions case No. 3/87 pending before the Designated Court, Ajmer In the aforesaid case charge -sheet has been filed against several accused including the petitioner for offences under Sections 302, 307, 354, 224, 225, 109, 114 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, Section 120 of the Indian Railways Act, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of the Act, 1985.

(3.) LEARNED counsel, appearing for the petitioner, vehemently and strenuously argued that there is no evidence against the petitioner and that the trial is not proceeding despite the fact that accused has been in jail for last year and a half. It is submitted that the evidence of conspiracy in the case is too weak to connect her with the crime and that she is a woman and has been falsely implicated on account of political enmity. It is further submitted that the petitioner is a student of M.A. (Punjabi) of Punjab University, Patiala and because of this case she is unable to continue her study. He has also submitted that the trial Court while rejecting the bail has not correctly relied upon the decision reported in Sukhdev Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh. 1986 Cr. L.J. 1757.] It has also been submitted that this Court has wide jurisdiction under Section 439 Cr. P C to enlarge the accused on bail even in cases under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act, 1985. It was also submitted by the counsel that the jurisdiction of this Court was taken away only when the Act, 1985 was substituted by Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (here in after referred to as 'the Act, 1987'). It has further been submitted that observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Usman Bhai Daud Bhai Menon v. State of Gujarat 1988 (1) SVLR (Cr.) 157, is not applicable in the instant case. He has further submitted that the detention of accused is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.