TIP Essential When Identity Based On Belated 'Alias' Claims; Conviction Can't Rest On Improved Witness Testimonies: Supreme Court Conviction Based On Flawed Identification Cannot Be Sustained In Law: Supreme Court Acquits Sri Lankan National In UAPA Case Penalty For Misdeclaration Of Power Capacity Is Strict Liability; No Need To Prove Intent Or 'Gaming': Supreme Court Authority To Appoint Includes Power To Dismiss; Visitor Can Terminate 'First Registrar' Under Transitional Provisions: Supreme Court State Cannot Use Delay Or Contractual Clauses To Deny Statutory Compensation For Land Acquisition: Supreme Court State As Model Employer Cannot Deny Regularization Benefits To Workers Due To Its Own Clerical Lapses: Supreme Court Section 106 Evidence Act | Husband’s Failure To Explain Wife’s Unnatural Death In Matrimonial Home Completes Chain Of Circumstances: Supreme Court Tender Condition For Out-Of-State Bidders To Submit EMD Via Demand Draft Not Mandatory If Clause Uses 'May': Supreme Court Affidavit Is Not 'Evidence' Under Section 3 Of Evidence Act Unless Court Orders Its Use Under Order XIX CPC: Supreme Court Exclusion Of Natural Heirs Not A 'Suspicious Circumstance' To Invalidate Will If Testator Provides Reason: Supreme Court 18-Year-Old Rendered 100% Disabled Entitled To Compensation For Loss Of Marriage Prospects And Dignity: Punjab & Haryana HC Right To Life Under Article 21 Prioritizes Preservation Of Mother's Life Over Reproductive Autonomy If Termination Poses Fatal Risk: J&K High Court Director’s Involvement In Company Affairs A Disputed Fact; High Court Cannot Conduct ‘Mini-Trial’ To Quash Section 138 NI Act Complaint: Punjab & Haryana HC Abuse Of Process: Bombay High Court Quashes FIRs Against Lawyer & Ex-Police Chief Sanjay Pandey; Says Complaints Motivated By Vengeance Magistrate Not Bound To Order FIR In Every Case Under Section 175(3) BNSS If Complainant Possesses All Evidence: Allahabad High Court High Court Can Initiate Suo Motu Inquiry Against Judicial Officers Based On Information; Sworn Affidavit Not Mandatory: Gujarat High Court Lack Of Videography, Independent Witnesses During Contraband Seizure Relevant Factors For Granting Bail Under NDPS Act: Delhi High Court

Long Incarceration Justifies Bail Despite Stringent Provisions Under UAPA: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Shoma Kanti Sen in Elgar Parishad Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih, granted bail to Shoma Kanti Sen, a senior citizen implicated in offenses under the UAPA and IPC. The court emphasized that Sen’s prolonged detention of nearly six years without charge framing, combined with her age and health issues, warranted bail notwithstanding the serious allegations under UAPA. The ruling, delivered on April 5th, 2024, underscores the court’s recognition of long incarceration as a valid ground for bail, in alignment with the Constitutional mandate under Article 21.

The apex court scrutinized the nature of allegations and evidence against Sen under various sections of the UAPA, finding no prima facie case warranting stringent bail restrictions under the Act. The court noted that mere association with accused individuals does not constitute proof of involvement in terrorist activities.

Sen was implicated following the Elgar Parishad event, accused of conspiring to overthrow the state and disrupt communal harmony. The case involved a wide array of charges under the IPC and UAPA, with the primary allegations relating to Sen’s association with CPI (Maoist), a banned terrorist organization, and her alleged involvement in raising funds and recruiting members for terrorist activities.

Association with CPI (Maoist): The court found no direct evidence of Sen’s involvement in terrorist activities or her membership in CPI (Maoist).

Alleged Involvement in Terrorist Activities: The court noted that mere attendance in meetings and promoting ideologies does not prima facie establish a case for terrorist activities under UAPA.

Fundraising Allegations: The evidence presented failed to corroborate any direct role of Sen in raising or receiving funds for terrorist purposes.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and granted bail to Shoma Kanti Sen. The bail was subject to several conditions, including restrictions on travel and regular reporting to the local police station. The court warned that any violation might lead to bail cancellation.

Date of Decision: April 5, 2024

Shoma Kanti Sen versus The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Latest Legal News