SHOMA KANTI SEN versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2024] 4 S.C.R. 270 · Decided: 05-04-2024 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 270 : 2024 INSC 269
Shoma Kanti Sen 
v. 
The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2595 of 2023)
05 April 2024
[Aniruddha Bose* and Augustine George Masih, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The appellant was detained on 06.06.2018. The appellant 
assails the order of a Division Bench of the High Court passed 
on 17.01.2023, disposing her application for bail with liberty to 
approach the Trial Court for filing a fresh application for bail. The 
issue arises for consideration that whether the offences under Part 
IV & VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, alleged to 
have been committed by the appellant, are prima facie true or not.
Headnotes
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 
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 
271
Shoma Kanti Sen v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.