TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Elderly woman gets bail in Elgar Parishad case despite Section 43D(5) restrictions citing prolonged detention</h1> <h3>Shoma Kanti Sen Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors.</h3> Shoma Kanti Sen Versus The State of Maharashtra and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Validity of the High Court's order directing the appellant to approach the Trial Court for bail.2. Examination of the appellant's entitlement to bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).3. Applicability of Section 43D(5) of UAPA and its impact on the appellant's bail plea.4. Consideration of the appellant's prolonged detention and health conditions in the context of bail.Summary:1. Validity of the High Court's Order:The Supreme Court examined the High Court's order directing the appellant to approach the Trial Court for bail after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) filed a second supplementary chargesheet. The High Court opined that the Trial Court should first assess the new evidence. However, the Supreme Court noted that the High Court, as an appellate forum, had the jurisdiction to consider the second supplementary chargesheet and decide the bail plea, especially given the appellant's prolonged detention and health conditions.2. Examination of the Appellant's Entitlement to Bail:The Supreme Court scrutinized the allegations against the appellant, including her alleged involvement with the Communist Party of India (Maoist) [CPI (Maoist)], a banned terrorist organization, and her participation in the Elgar Parishad event. The Court found no prima facie evidence of her active participation in terrorist acts or raising funds for terrorist activities. The materials presented, including witness statements and recovered documents, did not substantiate the accusations under Sections 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, and 40 of UAPA.3. Applicability of Section 43D(5) of UAPA:The Court analyzed whether the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of UAPA applied to the appellant's case. It concluded that the allegations did not meet the threshold of being 'prima facie true' for the offences under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA. The Court emphasized that the materials presented did not demonstrate the appellant's involvement in terrorist acts, raising funds for terrorism, or being a member of a terrorist organization with the intent to further its activities.4. Consideration of Prolonged Detention and Health Conditions:The Supreme Court highlighted the appellant's prolonged detention of nearly six years, her advanced age (over 66 years), and her medical conditions. Citing the case of K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India, the Court reiterated that prolonged incarceration without trial could justify bail under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Court found that the appellant's continued detention was not justified and directed her release on bail with specific conditions to ensure her availability for trial.Conclusion:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and granted bail to the appellant, imposing conditions to ensure her compliance and availability for trial. The Court emphasized the importance of balancing the need for pre-trial detention with the appellant's right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
