VERNON versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 867 · Decided: 28-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ANIRUDDHA BOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
867
VERNON
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.
(Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2023)
JULY 28, 2023
[ANIRUDDHA BOSE AND SUDHANSHU DHULIA, JJ.]
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Chapters IV and
VI- ss.16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40 and ss.13, 43D(5) – Denial of
bail – When not justified – Bhima-Koregaon violence – FIR – Scope
of the investigation was expanded – Searches were conducted at
the residences/workplaces of the appellants and they were arrested
– Case of the NIA is that various letters and other materials recovered
from the arrested co-accused persons showed appellants’
involvement with the CPI (Maoist), an organization placed in the
First Schedule to the 1967 Act as a terrorist organization – It is
alleged that the appellants played an active role in recruitment of
and training for cadres of the said organization and that one of the
appellant also had role in managing finances thereof – Bail plea of
the appellants dismissed by High Court – Held: Contents of the
letters through which the appellants are sought to be implicated are
in the nature of hearsay evidence, recovered from co-accused – No
covert or overt terrorist act was attributed to the appellants in these
letters or any other material – The letters were not recovered from
the appellants – Hence, these communications or content thereof
have weak probative value or quality – No credible case of
conspiracy to commit offences enumerated under Chapter IV and
VI – Mere participation in seminars by itself cannot constitute an
offence under the bail-restricting Sections of the 1967 Act – No
material was demonstrated that the appellants are members of the
terrorist organization – The funds, dealing with which was attributed
to one of the appellant cannot be connected to any terrorist act –
No reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against
the appellant of committing or conspiring to commit terrorist act is
prima facie true – Juxtaposing the appellants’ case founded on
Articles 14 and 21 with the allegations and considering the fact
that almost five years have lapsed since they were taken into custody,
the appellants have made out a case for granting bail – Impugned
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 867 : 2023 INSC 655
867
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
judgments set aside – Appellants be released on bail, on such terms
and conditions the Special Court may consider fit – Conditions to
be 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 have
been referred to by the prosecution, the acts specified to in sub-
clause (a) of s.15(1) can be attributed to the appellants – Nor there
is any allegation against them which would attract sub-clause (c)
of s.15(1) – Further, mere holding of certain literatures through
which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attract
the provisions of s.15(1)(b) – Thus, prima facie, there is no case
against the appellants u/s.15(1) (b).
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – s.20 –
Interpretation given to s.20 by Bombay High Court in Dr. Anand
Teltumbde vs. National Investigation Agency and Another case for
testing as to who would be a member of terrorist gang or terrorist
organisation, affirmed – In the present case, on facts, s.20 cannot
be made applicable against the appellants at this stage of the
proceeding, 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 meaning
assigned to it in s.15 – This Section also stipulates that the
expressions “terrorism” and “terrorist” shall be construed
accordingly – This implies construction of these two expressions in
the 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 interpretation
thereof would be relatable to the same expression as used in s.15 –
An expression used in different parts of a statute shall ordinarily
convey the same meaning unless contrary intention appears from
different parts of the same enactment itself – No such contrary
intention is found in the 1967 Act – Interpretation of Statutes.
Bail – Duty of the Court – Held: There is a du

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