TMI Blog1997 (12) TMI 661X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies. 2. On a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Special Operation Unit (SOU), Assam, a case Under Sections 120B, 121, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('Act' for short) was registered by the SOU Police Station. The F.I.R. was based on reports collected from various parts of the State of Assam regarding recessional activities of some militant organisations including United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). In connection with that case three ULFA activists were arrested by the police at Mumbai Airport on August 23, 1997. It is alleged that their interrogation revealed that their hotel bills and the medical bill of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nticipatory bail applications filed by the appellants to the Gauhati High Court for disposal by a Division Bench. This Court, however, permitted the appellants to continue on the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court till November 7, 1997. Pursuant to the said direction the applications for anticipatory bail were heard on November 7, 1997 by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court and the prayer of the appellants was rejected. Hence these appeals at their instance. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the appellants, as can be culled out from the affidavits (and the annexures thereto) filed before this Court, is as under : (a) The Company owns 21 tea gardens in the State of Assam and has 21,000 employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ons took place with the knowledge and guidance of Central Government agencies. (c) While admitting that the Company negotiated with the ULFA, that some of its officers met some leaders of that organisation in Bangkok in connection with their demands, and that it paid the hospital bill and hotel bills of their members in Mumbai it has submitted that to protect the larger interest of the employees of the Company and its tea gardens, it was compelled to yield to some of the demands of the organisation. The Company, however, categorically denied to have paid any ransom to the ULFA or any other militant organisation. 4. On the basis of the above facts and circumstances Mr. Shanti Bhushan who appeared for the Company, co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de by the latter and that the Company has expressed its willingness to accede to some of those demands. The investigation has further revealed that the Company has funded the organisation and the appellants had a role to play in it. 7. On the basis of the above materials collected during investigation, it is now to be seen whether the appellants have committed the offences for which they are sought to be made liable. Coming first to the offences under the Indian Penal Code Section 120B relates to criminal conspiracy to commit any offence and Sections 121, 121-A and 122 specifically relate to offences against the State. While Section 121 provides for punishment of those engaged in waging war against the Government of India, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Code, 1860 (45 of 1860), or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any such activity, or of which the members undertake any such activity : Provided that nothing contained in Sub-Clause (ii) shall apply to the State of Jammu Kashmir. 9. Section 10 provides that whoever is and continues to be a member of an association declared unlawful by a notification issued Under Section 3 which has become effective Under Sub-Section (3) of that section, or takes part in meetings of any such unlawful association, or contributes to, or receives or solicits any contribution for the purpose of any such unlawful association or in any way assists the operation of any such unlawful association shall be punishable with imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act) through contributions and also in other ways. However, when those material allegations leveled against the appellants are considered vis-a-vis the 'unlawful activities' envisaged under the Act it cannot be said that they are liable for an offence Under Section 13 of the Act, much less the aforesaid offences under the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, the question of granting anticipatory bail to the appellants Under Section 438 of the CrPC cannot and does not arise for an offence Under Section 10 of the Act is bailable; and a direction under the former can be issued only in respect of a non-bailable offence. Viewed in that context the merits of the appellants' contention that they have not committed any offence allege ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
