Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Mutation Order Without Notice Cannot Stand in Law: Orissa High Court Quashes Tahasildar's Rejection for Violating Natural Justice Illegal Remand Without Production of Accused Is Not a Technical Lapse, But a Constitutional Breach: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Major NDPS Case Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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