STATE OF MAHARASHTRA vs ANAND CHINTAMAN DIGHE

The Supreme Court held that under Section 20(8) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987, bail should ordinarily be refused unless the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accused is not involved in disruptive activities. The Court emphasized that serious offences require careful consideration of factors such as the nature of the offence, evidence, and potential witness tampering. The Court overturned the lower court's bail decision, finding it was based on irrelevant considerations, including the accused's political affiliation, rather than the gravity of the allegations against him.