| Headnote |
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Chapters IV andVI- ss.16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 and ss.13, 43D(5) – Denial ofbail – When not justified – Bhima-Koregaon violence – FIR – Scopeof the investigation was expanded – Searches were conducted atthe residences/workplaces of the appellants and they were arrested– Case of the NIA is that various letters and other materials recoveredfrom the arrested co-accused persons showed appellants’involvement with the CPI (Maoist), an organization placed in theFirst Schedule to the 1967 Act as a terrorist organization – It isalleged that the appellants played an active role in recruitment ofand training for cadres of the said organization and that one of theappellant also had role in managing finances thereof – Bail plea ofthe appellants dismissed by High Court – Held: Contents of theletters through which the appellants are sought to be implicated arein the nature of hearsay evidence, recovered from co-accused – Nocovert or overt terrorist act was attributed to the appellants in theseletters or any other material – The letters were not recovered fromthe appellants – Hence, these communications or content thereofhave weak probative value or quality – No credible case ofconspiracy to commit offences enumerated under Chapter IV andVI – Mere participation in seminars by itself cannot constitute anoffence under the bail-restricting Sections of the 1967 Act – Nomaterial was demonstrated that the appellants are members of theterrorist organization – The funds, dealing with which was attributedto one of the appellant cannot be connected to any terrorist act –No reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation againstthe appellant of committing or conspiring to commit terrorist act isprima facie true – Juxtaposing the appellants’ case founded onArticles 14 and 21 with the allegations and considering the factthat almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody,the appellants have made out a case for granting bail – Impugned judgments set aside – Appellants be released on bail, on such termsand conditions the Special Court may consider fit – Conditions tobe imposed, enumerated – Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 121, 121A, 124A,153A, 505(1)(b), 117, 120B r/w 34 – Constitution of India – Arts.14, 21 – National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Bail.Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.15(1)(a)-(c) –When not attracted – Held: In none of the materials which havebeen referred to by the prosecution, the acts specified to in subclause(a) of s.15(1) can be attributed to the appellants – Nor thereis any allegation against them which would attract sub-clause (c)of s.15(1) – Further, mere holding of certain literatures throughwhich violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attractthe provisions of s.15(1)(b) – Thus, prima facie, there is no caseagainst the appellants u/s.15(1) (b).Unlawful Activit ies (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.20 –Interpretation given to s.20 by Bombay High Court in Dr. AnandTeltumbde vs. National Investigation Agency and Another case fortesting as to who would be a member of terrorist gang or terroristorganisation, affirmed – In the present case, on facts, s.20 cannotbe made applicable against the appellants at this stage of theproceeding, on the basis of available materials.Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.2(k), 2(m), 15– Held: “Terrorist act” as defined u/s.2(k) carries the meaningassigned to it in s.15 – This Section also stipulates that theexpressions “terrorism” and “terrorist” shall be construedaccordingly – This implies construction of these two expressions inthe same way as has been done in s.15 – “terrorist organisation”has been independently defined in s.2(m) – But so far as the word“terrorist” is concerned, in this Section also, the interpretationthereof would be relatable to the same expression as used in s.15 –An expression used in different parts of a statute shall ordinarilyconvey the same meaning unless contrary intention appears fromdifferent parts of the same enactment itself – No such contraryintention is found in the 1967 Act – Interpretation of Statutes.Bail – Duty of the Court – Held: There is a duty of the Courtto form an opinion on perusal of the case diary or the report madeu/s.173, CrPC that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against such persons are prima facie true whileconsidering the prayer for bail, to reject prayers for bail of theappellants – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.173 – CriminalLaw.Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.38, 20 –Offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation – Held:To bring within the scope of s.38, it would not be sufficient todemonstrate that one is an associate or someone who professes tobe associated with a terrorist organisation – But there must beintention to further the activities of such organisation on the partof the person implicated under such provision – The same line ofreasoning in respect of membership of a terrorist organisation u/s.20, ought to apply in respect of an alleged offender implicated ins.38 – There must be evidence of there being intention to be involvedin a terrorist act – So far as the appellants are concerned, at thisstage there is no such evidence which can be relied on.Bail – Prima facie “test” – Held: It would not satisfy the primafacie “test” unless there is at least surface-analysis of probativevalue of the evidence, at the stage of examining the question ofgranting bail and the quality or probative value satisfies the Courtof its worth – Criminal Law.Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.38, 39, 43D(5) – “intention to further activities” – Held: The interpretationgiven to the phrase “intention to further activities” of terroristorganisation could also apply in the same way in relation to s.39 –In the present case, there has been no credible evidence against theappellants of commission of any terrorist act or enter into conspiracyto do so to invoke the provisions of s.43D (5).Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – NarcoticDrugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – s.37 – Held: Therestrictions on the Court while examining the question of bail underthe 1967 Act is less stringent in comparison to the provisions ofs.37, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 –Criminal Law.Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Bailrestricting sections – Jurisdiction of Constitutional Court – Held: Abail restricting clause cannot denude the jurisdiction of a Constitutional Court in testing if continued detention in a givencase would breach the concept of liberty enshrined in Article 21,would apply in a case where such a bail-restricting clause is beinginvoked on the basis of materials with prima facie low-probativevalue or quality – Constitution of India – Article 21 – CriminalLaw.Criminal Law – Stringent provisions of a statute –Interpretation of – Held: When the statutes have stringent provisions,the duty of the Court would be more onerous – Graver the offence,greater should be the care taken to see that the offence would fallwithin the four corners of the Act – Unlawful Activities (Prevention)Act, 1967 – Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987– Interpretation of Statutes. |
