Read Time: 06 minutes
"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 fall within the four corners of the Act...", the top court has further observed.
The Supreme Court has on Friday observed that to bring within the scope of Section 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('1967 Act'), it would not be sufficient to demonstrate that one is an associate or someone who professes to be associated with a terrorist organisation.
There must be intention to further the activities of such organisation on the part of the person implicated under such provision, a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dulia had added.
Section 38 deals with offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation.
Court has further observed that the term “terrorist organisation” [as employed in Section 2(m) of UAPA], is not a mere nomenclature and this expression would mean an organisation that carries on or indulges in terrorist acts.
"There must be evidence of there being intention to be involved in a terrorist act. So far as the appellants are concerned, at this stage there is no such evidence before us on which we can rely", the Court has remarked while granting bail to Bhima Koregaon violence accused Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferriera.
"Reference to AF and VG as members of the CPI (Maoist) appears from the statement of protected witness, but that link is made in relation to events between the years 2002-2007, before the organisation was included in the First Schedule to the 1967 Act. No evidence of continued membership after the party was classified as a terrorist organisation has been brought to our notice. Nor is there any reliable evidence to link IAPL with CPI (Maoist) as its frontal organisation...", the judgment adds.
This case is related to inflammatory speeches made at a conclave held in Pune on December 31, 2017, which, the police claimed, triggered violence the next day near the Koregaon-Bhima war memorial located on the outskirts of the western Maharashtra city.
NIA in its draft charges had claimed that the accused persons wanted to establish their own government and "wage a war against the nation". The accused in the case were charged under various sections of the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
A division bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia noted that while the charges against the two accused were serious, that alone could not be the reason for denying bail.
The materials placed before us do not justify continued imprisonment of the appellants, the Court has further added.
Gonsalves’ had approached the Supreme Court, after his bail application was rejected by the Bombay High Court in 2021. He is lodged in Pune jail from August 28, 2018 in respect of offences punishable under UAPA.
The High Court had then granted bail to co-accused Sudha Bharadwaj, but had rejected the default bail plea of eight other co-accused in the case including Sudhir Dhawale, Mahesh Raut, Vernon Gonsalves, Arun Ferreira, Rona Wilson, Shoma Sen, Surendra Gadling and Varavara Rao.
In August last year, Supreme Court's bench of Justices UU Lalit and SR Bhat had asked the NIA court to decide on framing charges against Vernon Gonsalves in three months.
Case Title: Vernon vs. State of Maharashtra | Arun vs. State of Maharashtra
Please Login or Register
