INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to civil rights activists Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira, who have been in custody
for nearly five years in the Elgar Parishad-Maoist links case.The court said there was no such evidence to prove their intention of being
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 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
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.
