Supreme Court grants bail to accused under UAPA Section 38, finds no prima facie evidence of terrorist conspiracy or recruitment activities.

Vernon Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vernon Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of Bail by High Court
2. Association with a Terrorist Organization
3. Application of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
4. Delay in Trial and Continued Detention
5. Interpretation of Evidence and Prima Facie Case

Summary of Judgment:

1. Rejection of Bail by High Court:
The appellants challenged two judgments of the Bombay High Court rejecting their bail applications. The High Court's decisions were based on the same FIR and chargesheet, implicating the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

2. Association with a Terrorist Organization:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved with the Communist Party of India (Maoist), a designated terrorist organization under the UAPA. The allegations included recruitment and training of cadres, managing finances, and participating in a conspiracy to overthrow the democratic government. The evidence cited involved letters and statements from protected witnesses, but these were largely based on third-party communications and lacked direct involvement of the appellants in terrorist acts.

3. Application of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA:
The court examined whether the accusations under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, and 40 of the UAPA were prima facie true. The court noted that the materials presented by the prosecution, including letters and witness statements, did not establish the appellants' direct involvement in terrorist acts. The court emphasized that mere possession of certain literature or participation in seminars does not constitute an offense under the bail-restricting sections of the UAPA.

4. Delay in Trial and Continued Detention:
The court considered the prolonged detention of the appellants, who had been in custody for almost five years without the trial commencing. Citing previous judgments, the court held that continued detention without substantial evidence breaches the concept of liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The court noted that the appellants' detention could not be justified based on the materials presented, which had low probative value.

5. Interpretation of Evidence and Prima Facie Case:
The court analyzed the evidence against the appellants, including letters and witness statements, and found that they did not prima facie establish the appellants' involvement in terrorist acts. The court reiterated that the materials must show the appellants' complicity in the commission of the stated offenses to satisfy the prima facie test. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence to justify the continued detention of the appellants.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgments and granted bail to the appellants, subject to certain conditions, including surrendering passports, reporting to the police station weekly, and keeping their mobile phones active and accessible. The court emphasized that bail could be canceled if the appellants breached any conditions or influenced witnesses. The appeals were allowed, and pending applications were disposed of.