SANJAYDUTT versus STATE THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY

SANJAYDUTT versus STATE THROUGH CBI, BOMBAY

The application for bail is denied. The questions of (i) whether Section 5 TADA requires intention to use arms for terrorist activity and (ii) whether default in filing the charge sheet within the prescribed period confers an indefeasible right to bail, require authoritative pronouncement. Both questions are referred to a Constitution Bench for final determination. Obiter dicta in Supreme Court judgments is binding, but previous interpretations require reconsideration due to their wide impact and possible reading into the statute words not present. Orders of lower courts on bail or detention are not determinative of the statutory right unless in line with the statutory scheme. The matter...

Parties
Petitioner: Sanjay Dutt; Respondent: State through CBI, Bombay
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
18 August 1994
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Order on Reference to Constitution Bench, Application for Bail
Outcome
Bail denied; questions of law referred to Constitution Bench for authoritative decision.
Legal Topics
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987, Bail, Interpretation of Statutes, Default Bail, Mens Rea, Detention, Criminal Procedure
Criminal Law Constitutional Law Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, 1987 Bail Interpretation of Statutes Default Bail Mens Rea Detention +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanjay Dutt

Petitioner

State through CBI, Bombay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition (criminal) / Order on Reference to Constitution Bench, Application for Bail

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether mere unauthorised possession of specified arms and ammunition in a notified area, per se, attracts Section 5 of TADA, or whether there must be material to show intention to use for terrorist or disruptionist activity.
  2. 2 Whether default in completion of investigation within 180 days under TADA grants accused an indefeasible right to bail, and if so, at what stage and under what circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for bail is denied. The questions of (i) whether Section 5 TADA requires intention to use arms for terrorist activity and (ii) whether default in filing the charge sheet within the prescribed period confers an indefeasible right to bail, require authoritative pronouncement. Both questions are referred to a Constitution Bench for final determination. Obiter dicta in Supreme Court judgments is binding, but previous interpretations require reconsideration due to their wide impact and possible reading into the statute words not present. Orders of lower courts on bail or detention are not determinative of the statutory right unless in line with the statutory scheme. The matter...

Court Disposition

Bail denied; questions of law referred to Constitution Bench for authoritative decision.

Orders

  • Application for bail denied.
  • Questions concerning interpretation of Section 5 TADA and rights under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C./Section 20(4)(bb) TADA referred to Constitution Bench.