https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283060 The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's grant of anticipatory bail to a company and its officers accused of funding ULFA militants. The Gauhati High Court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the offense under Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was bailable, making anticipatory bail unnecessary. The investigation implicated the company in funding ULFA and engaging with militant groups, leading to the denial of bail for the appellants. The judgment clarified the distinction between offenses under the Act and the Indian Penal Code, ultimately denying anticipatory bail to the accused. en-us Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 Sep 2019 16:55:08 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283060 The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court's grant of anticipatory bail to a company and its officers accused of funding ULFA militants. The Gauhati High Court rejected their bail applications, emphasizing that the offense under Section 10 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was bailable, making anticipatory bail unnecessary. The investigation implicated the company in funding ULFA and engaging with militant groups, leading to the denial of bail for the appellants. The judgment clarified the distinction between offenses under the Act and the Indian Penal Code, ultimately denying anticipatory bail to the accused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 03 Dec 1997 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283060