SANJAY DUTT versus THE STATE THROUGH C.B.I. BOMBAY

SANJAY DUTT versus THE STATE THROUGH C.B.I. BOMBAY

In prosecution under Section 5 TADA, proof of conscious, unauthorised possession of specified arms in a notified area is sufficient; further nexus with terrorist activity is presumed unless rebutted by the accused. Accused may rebut presumption by proving that the possession was wholly unrelated to any terrorist/disruptive act. The right to bail for failure to complete investigation within statutory period exists only till the challan is filed; after filing, bail is governed by general provisions and merits. Section 20(8) conditions for bail conform to established criminal law principles.

Parties
Petitioner: Sanjay Dutt; Respondent: The State through C.B.I. Bombay
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 September 1994
Procedural Posture
Special Leave Petition / Decision on Referred Legal Questions by Constitution Bench
Outcome
petitions dismissed
Legal Topics
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act, Bail, Statutory Interpretation, Burden of Proof, Strict Liability Offences, Presumption, Possession of Arms, Penal Statutes
Criminal Law Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (prevention) Act Bail Statutory Interpretation Burden of Proof Strict Liability Offences Presumption Possession of Arms +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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sanjay Dutt

Petitioner

The State through C.B.I. Bombay

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Special Leave Petition / Decision on Referred Legal Questions by Constitution Bench

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What are the essential ingredients of Section 5 offence under the TADA Act and the defence available to the accused?
  2. 2 What is the nature and scope of the accused’s right to bail under Section 20(4)(bb) of TADA Act upon failure to complete investigation within time allowed?
  3. 3 What is the meaning and scope of Section 20(8) of TADA Act regarding bail conditions?

Ratio Decidendi

In prosecution under Section 5 TADA, proof of conscious, unauthorised possession of specified arms in a notified area is sufficient; further nexus with terrorist activity is presumed unless rebutted by the accused. Accused may rebut presumption by proving that the possession was wholly unrelated to any terrorist/disruptive act. The right to bail for failure to complete investigation within statutory period exists only till the challan is filed; after filing, bail is governed by general provisions and merits. Section 20(8) conditions for bail conform to established criminal law principles.

Court Disposition

petitions dismissed

Orders

  • Questions of law answered as per reasoning; claim for bail to be considered by appropriate Division Bench on merits.