Calling Family Land "Ancestral" Is Not Enough — Must Trace Four Generations Of Male Lineage To Stop Father From Selling It: Punjab & Haryana HC Marks Of Candidates In Public Exam Not Private Information, Disclosable Under RTI: Allahabad High Court Integrity of a Judge Is Difficult to Prove by Direct Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Adverse ACR Entry Against Judicial Officer When State Reorganisation Is Already Done, Section 103 Of Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act Cannot Undo It: Supreme Court Rules Sugarcane Societies Are Not Multi-State Bodies Bihar Cannot Take Over A Century-Old Library By Paying One Rupee As Compensation: Supreme Court Strikes Down 2015 Act Call Records Without Section 65-B Certificate Are Inadmissible, Oral Evidence Of Nodal Officer No Substitute: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Convict Minority Shareholders Cannot Block Capital Reduction By Majority: Supreme Court Upholds Bharti Telecom's Buyout Of 1.09% Individual Investors At Rs.196.80 Per Share Travel Bans On Unvaccinated, No Disclosure Of Deaths Abroad: Supreme Court Finds COVID Vaccine Programme Violated Articles 14, 19 And 21 Bottle Cap Supplier Gets Anticipatory Bail In Spurious Liquor Case: Supreme Court Finds No Raid At His Premises, No Misuse Of Liberty DNA And Chemical Analyst Reports Cannot Be Read In Evidence Without Examining Scientific Experts: Bombay High Court Proof Of Agreement Alone Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Specific Performance - Continuous Readiness And Willingness Is A Condition Precedent: Chhattisgarh High Court Suspicion, However Grave, Cannot Replace Proof: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Bank Clerk’s Dismissal in Rs. 38.67 Lakh Pension Account Case Cheque Dishonour Due To ‘Account Blocked’ Cannot Attract Section 138 NI Act When Drawer Had No Control Over Frozen Account: Karnataka High Court Mere Domestic Discord Or Harassment Is Not Abetment Of Suicide: Gujarat High Court Upholds Husband’s Acquittal Silence On Incriminating Circumstance Can Strengthen Prosecution Case: Gauhati High Court On Section 313 CrPC Even In Heinous Offences, Accused Cannot Be Kept In Jail Indefinitely: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail After 7 Years Of Trial Delay Acquittal On Benefit Of Doubt Cannot Rescue Police Officer From Removal: Kerala High Court Upholds Dismissal Despite Criminal Court's Not Guilty Verdict Trial Court Cannot Ignore High Court Directions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Orders Fresh Enquiry And Initiates Disciplinary Action State Cannot Shrug Responsibility For Vaccine Deaths: Supreme Court Directs Centre To Frame No-Fault Compensation Policy For COVID-19 Adverse Events Supreme Court Streamlines Procedural Safeguards For Passive Euthanasia

Supreme Court Judgment Grants Bail to Appellants in UAPA Case: "Mere Possession of Literature Not Enough to Constitute an Offense"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has granted bail to two appellants, Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, who were facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aniruddha Bose and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia on 28th July 2023, has drawn attention to the strict interpretation of the UAPA and emphasized that "mere possession of literature, even if the content thereof inspires or propagates violence, by itself cannot constitute any of the offenses within Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act."

The Supreme Court's ruling comes after careful examination of the evidence and materials presented by the prosecution to establish whether there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the appellants are prima facie true. The court analyzed various documents, including letters and account statements, which were alleged to have been recovered from the devices and residences of co-accused. Additionally, witness statements were evaluated to ascertain the involvement of the appellants in terrorist acts.

In the judgment, the court highlighted that none of the materials cited by the prosecution could be directly attributed to the appellants regarding terrorist acts or conspiracy to commit such acts. The letters and documents, allegedly recovered from co-accused, only record third-party responses to the appellants' activities and do not provide substantial evidence of their involvement in terrorist acts. Moreover, the court observed that "mere holding of certain literatures through which violent acts may be propagated would not ipso facto attract the provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of the said Act."

The ruling also underlined that stringent provisions of the UAPA should be carefully interpreted, and the court should be mindful of not denying bail based solely on the seriousness of the charges. The court considered the fact that the appellants had already spent nearly five years in detention while evaluating their bail plea.

Citing previous judgments, the Supreme Court emphasized that bail-restricting clauses in the UAPA cannot override an individual's constitutional right to liberty as enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court held that the right to seek bail must be considered with regard to factors such as the nature and seriousness of the offenses, character of the evidence, delay in trial, and the possibility of witnesses being influenced.

Apex court ordered the release of Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira on bail and imposed specific conditions on their freedom, including surrendering their passports, providing regular updates on their mobile phones' location, and reporting to the designated police station once a week.

Date of Decision: 28th July 2023

VERNON vs THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR.   

Latest Legal News