Summary
The Court granted Shoma Kanti Sen bail after finding no reasonable ground to treat the Chapter IV/VI UAPA accusations as prima facie true on the materials presented. A surface assessment of probative value was necessary without conducting a trial. Her age, health, almost six years’ detention and unframed charges also weighed in favour of release. Fresh remand was unnecessary merely because NIA had filed another chargesheet. Bail was conditional, and all findings on the allegations remained preliminary.
Issues
- Whether the appellate court could consider the supplementary chargesheet without remand.
- Whether the available material met the Section 43D(5) prima facie threshold.
- How prolonged detention, age and health affected bail.
- What conditions and limits accompanied release.
Provisions considered
- Section 21(2), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008In this pending bail proceeding properly begun before the earlier competent forums, the Division Bench could examine the later supplementary chargesheet; remand was permissible but not mandatory. (¶¶ 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18)
- Section 43D(5), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967The Chapter IV/VI restriction required scrutiny of whether the accusations were prima facie true, including at least surface analysis of evidentiary worth, rather than automatic acceptance of labels. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 36, 39, 40)
- Sections 15–18, 18B, 20 and 38–40, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967The material did not prima facie establish the necessary terrorist-act, recruitment, membership, support or funding links against this appellant for bail purposes. (¶¶ 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36)
- Section 13, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967This charge lay outside the specified Section 43D(5) restriction; ordinary bail considerations applied alongside the remaining IPC accusations once that threshold was not met. (¶¶ 29, 41)
- Article 21, Constitution of IndiaPre-trial detention requires fair, reasonable and proportionate justification. Constitutional bail power recognised in Najeeb survives statutory restrictions, subject to the particular facts. (¶¶ 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
Held
- Only the investigating agency had changed in the same FIR investigation. The High Court’s appellate jurisdiction could encompass the later chargesheet, whose allegations did not introduce an altogether different case. Considering the appellant’s lengthy custody, age and absence of framed charges, the Supreme Court declined further remand and decided bail after both sides had addressed the full materials. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25)
- Watali’s prima facie test does not dispense with at least a surface assessment of the material’s probative value, as explained in Vernon. The Court examined the specific allegations without making final findings or requiring proof to the trial standard. (¶¶ 20, 21, 22, 23, 42)
- The attributed meetings, statements and presence did not prima facie show commission, attempt or facilitation of a terrorist act by the statutory means. Third-party correspondence and an undated account statement did not sufficiently connect her to terrorist funding; mere presence during another person’s alleged recruitment did not establish recruiting conduct by her. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35)
- Alleged links with named civil organisations were not supported by credible material connecting those organisations to CPI (Maoist). Mere meetings or communications with accused persons did not establish the necessary terrorist-organisation association and intent. On the available record, reasonable grounds for prima facie truth of the Chapter IV/VI accusations were absent. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36)
- Gurwinder Singh’s fact-specific refusal of bail did not displace Najeeb’s Article 21 reasoning. Here the Court also applied ordinary bail considerations to Section 13 and IPC charges, weighing the combined effect of almost six years’ detention, unframed charges, age over sixty-six, health and the nature of the material. Health alone was not held sufficient. (¶¶ 14, 23, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41)
- Release was subject to Special Court conditions including no departure from Maharashtra without leave, passport surrender, address and single-number disclosure, an always-accessible charged phone, the judgment’s specified continuous GPS/phone-pairing condition, and fortnightly reporting to the local SHO. Breach could be taken to the Special Court for cancellation without further Supreme Court reference. (¶¶ 42, 43)
- The High Court judgment was set aside and the appeal allowed with bail directed. All observations about the allegations were expressly prima facie; framing of charges and trial evidence remained for the competent court. The medical application and pending applications were disposed of. (¶¶ 42, 44, 45)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and conditional bail directed. Prosecution merits expressly left open; breach-based cancellation may be sought before the Special Court. Medical and pending applications disposed of.