AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 220 wordsH.S. Rai, J.—Heard. The petitioner is in custody since 1191996. Challan has been presented. Mr. Anand Swaroop informs me that the trial proceedings court are held up because the petitioner is not being produced in the court at Chandigarh by the jail authorities of Sangrur where he is committed Mr. Anand Swaroop further informs me that allegation against the petitioner is that he entered into a conspiracy at Patiala to commit some terrorist act in Chandigarh. There is no other overt act attributed to him. Mr. M. K. Bansal, Judge of the Designated Court, Chandigarh vide his order dated 9101986 while dealing with the bail of coaccused Balwinder Singh son of late Sh. Devinder Singh in this very FIR held that no offence U/S 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 is made out from the facts of this case. Ujagar Singh, J. had issued notice to state taking this fact into consideration.
Taking all the circumstances into consideration, as no offence U/S 3 and 4 of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 has been committed by the petitioner. I deem it a fit case where the petitioner be allowed bail and he is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate security to the satisfaction of C. J. M. Chandigarh.