LexR.K. KRISHNA KUMAR versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
R.K. KRISHNA KUMAR
A
v.
STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS.
DECEMBER 3, 1997
[M.K. MUKHERJEE AND KT. THOMAS, JJ.)
B
Oiminal Law :
Oiminal Procedure Code, 1973 : Section 438.
Anticipato1y Bail-Under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and C
Penal Code-Grant of-Officers of a Company met some leaders of an
unlawful association, negotiated with them in co1111ectio11 with their vwious
demands including ransom demands-Case Diaty revealed that the Company
had funded the said unlawful association and the Officers had a role to play
in such funding-Held : In such circumstances, a p1inia f acie case under S. l 0 D
made out against the Officers, in that, they assisted the operations of the said
un/a11ful association but not under Section 13 thereof or under the Penal
Cod~Hence, question of granting anticipat01y bail does not wise since
offence under S.10 is bailable-unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967,
Ss. IO and 13-Penal Code, 1860, Ss. 120-B, 121, 121-A and 122.
Section 438-Anticipatory Bail--Grant of-Held: Not applicable if the
offence is bailable.
E
The appellants were Officers of a Company and they met some
leaders of an unlawful association, negotiated with them in connection with
their demands including ransom demands and payment of hospital and F
hotel bills. The case diary of the investigation proceedings had revealed
that the Company had funded the said unlawful association and that the
appellants had a role to play in such funding. On the basis of these facts
the police registered a case against the appellants under Section 120-B,
121, 121-A and 122 of the Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 10 and 13 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
G
The appellants apprehende<I that they might be arrested in connec-
tion with the above case and, therefore, they filed applications for an-
ticipatory bail before the Bombay High Court under Section 438 of the
, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The applications were allowed by the
Bombay High Court. Being aggrieved the respondent-State preferred an H
153
154
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997) SUPP. 6 S.C.R.
A appeal before this Court. This Court set aside the order of the Bombay
High Court as it was passed ex-palte and transferred the anticipatory bail
applications to the Gauhati High Court. However, the Gauhati High Court ·
· ..
dismissed these applications. Hence this appeal.
B
c
Disposing of the appeal, this Court
HELD : 1. When the materials collected during investigation are
judged in the light of the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 and Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 it is apparent that they make out a plima
f acie case under Seclion 10 of the Act against the appellants, in that, they
have assisted the operations of an unlawful association through contribu-
tions and also in other ways. However, when those material allegations
levelled against the appellants are considered vis-a-vis the 'unlawful
activities' envisaged under the Act it cannot be said that they are liable for
an offence under Section 13 of the Act, much less under the offences under
the Penal Code. Resultantly, the question of granting anticipatory bail to
D the appellants under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
cannot and does not arise, for an offence under Section 10 of the Act is
bailable; arid a direction under the former can be issued only in respect of
a non-bailable offence. [159-F-H; 160-A]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
E 1157 of 1997 etc. etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 10.11.97 of the Assam High
Court in S.C.A. No. 60 of 1997.
Soli J. Sorabjee, Shanti Bhushan, Arun Jaitley, Mahesh Jethmalani,
F
Arvind Kumar, Upamanyu Hazarika, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini
Gore, Ms, M. Karanjawala, Advs. with them for the Appellants.
KT.S. Tulsi, Sunil .Jain, Vijay Hansaria, Vikas Pawha, for M/s Jain
Hansaria & Co., for the Respondents.
G
The .T udgment of the Court was delivered by
M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Leave granted in all these petitions. Heard
the learned counsel for the parties.
2. On a First Information Report (F.LR.) lodged by the Superinten-
H dent of Police, Special Operation Unit (SOU), Assam, a case under
R.K KRISHNA KUMAR v. STATE [M.K MUKHERJEE, J.]
155
Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and 10 and A
13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('Act' for short) was
registered by the SOU Police Station. The F.I.R. was based on reports
colExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.