‘No proof of terror links’: Supreme Court gives bail to 2 in Elgar Parishad case | India News – Times of India
The court said there was no such evidence to prove their intention of being involved in a terrorist act, and that mere possession of certain literature propagating violent acts can’t be termed a terrorist action under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
“No material has been demonstrated by NIA before us that the appellants are members of the terrorist organisation. Considering the fact that almost five years have elapsed, we are satisfied they have made out a case for bail. The allegations are serious, no doubt, but for that reason alone, bail can’t be denied to them,” Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia said. The bench, however, imposed strict conditions on the two, including that their whereabouts be tracked round-the-clock.
‘Possession of literature propagating violence won’t amount to terror act’
The Supreme Court on Friday held that possessing literature and participation in seminars, which propagate violent acts, would not amount to any act of terror and that there must be evidence of there being an intention to get involved in a terrorist act in order to book a person under the stringent anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Granting bail to activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira in the Elgar Parishad case, a bench of Justices Aniruddha Bose and Sudhanshu Dhulia enumerated Section 38 of the Act which talks about offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation and said that “it would not be sufficient to demonstrate that one is an associate or someone who professes to be associated with a terrorist organisation. But there must be intention to further the activities of such organisation on the part of the person implicated under such provision … There must be evidence of there being intention to be involved in a terrorist act. So far as the appellants are concerned, at this stage there is no such evidence before us on which we can rely.”
The bench said, “As regards the acts specified in Section 15(1) (b) thereof, some of the literature alleged to have been recovered from the appellants, by themselves give hint of propagation of such activities. But there is nothing against the appellants to prima facie establish that they had indulged in the activities which would constitute overawing any public functionary by means of criminal force or the show of criminal force or attempts by the appellants to do so. Neither there is allegation against them of causing death of any public functionary or attempt to cause death of such functionary. 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 association of the appellants with the activities of the designated terrorist organisation is sought to be established through third party communications. Moreover, actual involvement of the appellants in any terrorist act has not surfaced from any of these communications. Nor there is any credible case of conspiracy to commit offences enumerated under chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act. Mere participation in seminars by itself cannot constitute an offence under the bail-restricting Sections of the 1967 Act, with which they have been charged,” the bench said.
The court said contents of the letters through which the accused were sought to be implicated are in the nature of hearsay evidence, recovered from co-accused and no covert or overt terrorist act has been attributed to the appellants in these letters, or any other material forming part of records of these two appeals.”Reference to the activities of the accused are in the nature of ideological propagation and allegations of recruitment. No evidence of any of the persons who are alleged to have been recruited or have joined this “struggle” inspired by the appellants has been brought before us. Thus, we are unable to accept NIA’s contention that the appellants have committed the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation,” it said.
The court said since statutes like UAPA have stringent provisions, the duty of the court would be more onerous. “Graver the offence, greater should be the care taken to see that the offence would fall within the four corners of the Act,” it said.
