| Headnote |
Penal Code 1860 – ss. 153A, 505 (1b), 117 r/w. s.34 – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – ss.13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 4 38, 39, 40 & 43-D– National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – The prosecution’s case is that in a programme, provocative speeches were delivered and there were cultural performances which resulted in disruption of communal harmony, violence, and loss of life – Police conducted raids – The State Police, allegedly, found incriminatory materials – According to prosecution, the State Police had discovered a larger conspiracy of which the appellant was a part – They found that CPI (Maoist) to be behind such conspiracy – The latter being a banned terrorist organisation, led to invoking offences under the 1967 Act – Appellant was arrested – After that the initial chargesheet and supplementary charge-sheet was submitted by the State Police invoking allegations of commission of offences under sections of the 1860 Code r/w. Sections of the 1967 Act – Bail application of appellant was rejected by trial Court – Appellant filed regular bail application before the High Court – Meanwhile, investigation was transferred to NIA – Single judge directed to file bail application before the Division Bench of the High Court considering the provisions of s.21(2) of the 2008 Act – The Division Bench disposed of the appellant’s prayer for bail, giving liberty to the appellant to approach the Trial Court for filing a fresh application for bail – Permissibility: Held: The course adopted by the High Court was a permissible course – However, the appellant has been in detention for almost six years, her age is over 66 years suffering from various ailments and charges have not yet been framed – Having taken these factors into account, it would not be in the interest of justice to remand the matter to the Special Court constituted under the 2008 Act at this stage – Bail of the appellant required to be considered on merits – NIA responded to the necessity of detention of the appellant at this stage in negative – There is no allegation at this stage that apart from being present, she had any further active participation on that date in the programme – She was also not named in the initial FIR – On examining the acts attributed to the appellant by the various witnesses or as inferred from the evidence relied on by the prosecution, there is no prima facie commission or attempt to commit any terrorist act by the appellant applying the test for invoking s.15 r/w. s.162 of the 1967 Act – On the allegations of raising funds for a terrorist act, there are mere third-party allegations that money has been directed to be sent to her – None of the materials reveal receipt of any funds by her or her direct role in raising or collecting funds – As regards the allegation against the appellant for committing an offence u/s. 184 of the 1967 Act are concerned, the materials collected so far, only reveal her participation in some meetings and her attempt to encourage women to join the struggle for new democratic revolution – These allegations, prima facie, do not reveal the commission of an offence u/s. 18 of the 1967 Act – There are no specific materials or statements produced by the prosecution which attribute acts of recruitment in banned organization by the appellant – Evidence of her involvement in any fund-raising activities for the CPI (Maoist) or her support to the said organisation has not transpired through any reliable evidence at this stage – Mere meeting of accused individuals or being connected with them through any medium cannot implicate one in Chapter VI offences under of the 1967 Act, in the absence of any further evidence of being associated with a terrorist organisation – On perusal of the evidences collected against her as also the allegations made by prosecution witnesses, there is no reasonable ground for believing that the accusations against the appellants for commission of the offences incorporated in Chapter IV and VI of the 1967 Act are prima facie true – Thus, the impugned judgment set aside and the appellant directed to be released on bail with conditions. [Paras 14, 15, 23, 24, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 42] |
