Mere Unwanted Staring At A Woman's Chest In Office Does Not Constitute Voyeurism Under Section 354-C IPC: Bombay High Court State Cannot Justify Espionage FIR Based Solely On Custodial Disclosure Without Corroborative Evidence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Bail Mere Issuance Of Letter Of Intent Without Formal Work Order Does Not Create Concluded Contract Or Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court Executing Court Cannot Modify Terms Of Compromise Decree Merely Because Implementation Is Impracticable: Supreme Court Adjudicating Authority Only Needs To Check For 'Plausible' Pre-Existing Dispute Under Section 9 IBC, Not Its Success On Merits: Supreme Court Arguing Against Settled Law To Show Skill Wastes Court Time; Giving Up Such Arguments A Professional Virtue: Supreme Court Limitation Under Section 468 CrPC Is Computed From Date Of Filing Complaint, Not Date Of Cognizance: Supreme Court MSCS Act | Co-operative Society Can't Acquire Corporate Debtor Under IBC If Not In 'Same Line Of Business' As Per Its Bye-Laws: Supreme Court Multi-State Co-op Societies Can Only Invest In Entities With Substantially Similar Core Business Under Bye-Laws: Supreme Court High Court Cannot Usurp Governor's Statutory Discretion To Grant Extraordinary Pension Under 1981 Rules: Supreme Court Litigants Can Challenge Non-Appealable Interlocutory Orders In Final Appeal Under Section 105 CPC: Supreme Court Plaintiff Cannot File Fresh Suit For Title If Relief Was Omitted In Earlier Injunction Suit Arising From Same Dispute: Supreme Court Plaintiff's Failure To Enter Witness Box Draws Rebuttable Presumption, Not Fatal To Suit If Rebutted By Cogent Evidence: Supreme Court Sale Deeds Executed During Pendency Of Specific Performance Suit Hit By Doctrine Of Lis Pendens: Supreme Court EWS Certificates Must Relate To Correct Financial Year; Courts Should Not Routinely Interfere In Online Recruitment Rejections: Supreme Court Court Can Lift 'Veil Of Partnership' To Evict Tenants Using Reconstitution As Cloak For Unlawful Sub-Letting: Supreme Court State Cannot Fix Lower Dearness Relief Rate For Pensioners Than Dearness Allowance For Serving Employees: Supreme Court Prolonged Separation Indicates Matrimonial Bond Broken Beyond Repair: Supreme Court Upholds Divorce Over Wife's Cruelty Right To Contest Elections Distinct From Right To Vote, Co-Operative Societies Can Set Threshold Eligibility Conditions: Supreme Court Court Can Draw Adverse Inference Against Party Withholding Best Evidence, Has No Duty To Seek Production: Supreme Court Limitation | Delay Condonation Cannot Be An Act Of Generosity: Supreme Court Refuses To Condone 31-Year Delay To Challenge Decree Sentence Suspension In Murder Cases Only Under Exceptional Circumstances; Presumption Of Innocence Erased Upon Conviction: Supreme 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