Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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