Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

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