A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

This case revolves around allegations of terrorism and involvement in banned organizations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The appellant, a 66-year-old woman in detention for nearly six years, was accused of participating in meetings and promoting ideologies of CPI (Maoist), a banned organization. The appeal challenges the Bombay High Court’s order rejecting her bail plea without considering the merit of the accusations under Section 43D (5) of UAPA. The Supreme Court considered her prolonged incarceration, non-framing of charges, lack of prima facie evidence supporting terrorism-related allegations, and the principle of balancing national security concerns with personal liberty.

Keywords: Detention, Bail, Prolonged Incarceration, CPI (Maoist), UAPA, Prima Facie Evidence.

B) CASE DETAILS

i. Judgment Cause Title:
Shoma Kanti Sen v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr.

ii. Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 2595 of 2023

iii. Judgment Date:
April 5, 2024

iv. Court:
Supreme Court of India

v. Quorum:
Justices Aniruddha Bose and Augustine George Masih

vi. Author:
Justice Aniruddha Bose

vii. Citation:
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 270

viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Penal Code, 1860: Sections 153A, 505(1b), 117, and 34
• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39, 40, and 43-D
• National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: Section 21(2)

ix. Judgments Overruled:
None explicitly overruled.

x. Case is Related to:
Criminal Law, Terrorism, Bail Jurisprudence.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appellant was accused of participating in a program that allegedly propagated CPI (Maoist) ideologies and contributed to communal disharmony. The prosecution linked her to a conspiracy orchestrated by CPI (Maoist), a banned terrorist organization. Materials such as letters, speeches, and meeting records formed the basis of the charges. Despite years of detention, charges were not framed. Her bail plea, denied by lower courts, centered around a lack of prima facie evidence under the stringent requirements of Section 43D(5) UAPA.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Initial Allegations:
   The appellant was implicated in events related to Elgar Parishad (31 December 2017), which allegedly triggered violence.

2. Investigation and Arrest:

   • On 6 June 2018, her residence was raided, and alleged incriminatory material was seized.
   • Initially investigated by the Pune Police, the case was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in January 2020.

3. Chargesheets and Prosecution Evidence:

   • Three chargesheets highlighted her alleged links with CPI (Maoist).
   • Witnesses purportedly identified her role in promoting banned ideologies.

4. Procedural History:

   • Bail was denied multiple times due to the bail-restricting clause in Section 43D(5) UAPA.
   • The High Court suggested filing a fresh application in the trial court after reviewing supplementary chargesheets.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Does the material evidence prima facie establish the appellant’s involvement in terrorism-related activities under Chapters IV and VI of UAPA?
ii. Does prolonged incarceration without framing of charges justify bail under Section 43D(5) UAPA?
iii. Whether the procedural requirements of UAPA outweigh personal liberty in this case?

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Lack of Prima Facie Evidence:

   • No concrete proof linked the appellant to terrorism or fundraising activities under UAPA.
   • Mere presence at the event and association with co-accused do not satisfy prima facie requirements under Section 43D(5) UAPA.

2. Violation of Personal Liberty:

   • Detention exceeding six years without framing charges violated Article 21 of the Constitution.

3. Medical Grounds:

   • At 66 years of age, her deteriorating health necessitated bail on humanitarian grounds.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Seriousness of Allegations:

   • Accusations of promoting terrorism justified detention under UAPA’s stringent bail provisions.

2. Gravity of Offense:

   • Active participation in organizing events and alleged funding activities could undermine national security.

3. Sufficiency of Evidence:

   • Letters and witness statements implicated her in aiding CPI (Maoist).

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:

The Supreme Court held that prima facie evidence failed to establish the appellant’s involvement in terrorism or fundraising under UAPA. Prolonged incarceration without charge framing and age-related health concerns justified bail.

b. Obiter Dicta:

The Court emphasized balancing the need for stringent anti-terror laws with protection of personal liberty, especially in cases of prolonged pre-trial detention.

c. Guidelines:

• Determination of Prima Facie Evidence: Courts must conduct a surface-level analysis of allegations to ensure compliance with Section 43D(5).
• Prolonged Detention: Courts must consider age, health, and procedural delays in bail decisions under UAPA.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in upholding personal liberty under stringent legal frameworks like UAPA. By granting bail, the Supreme Court set a precedent for balancing national security concerns with human rights, particularly in cases of prolonged detention without substantive evidence.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

1. National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali [(2019) 5 SCC 1]
2. Vernon v. The State of Maharashtra [(2023) INSC 655]
3. K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India [(2021) 3 SCC 713]

b. Important Statutes Referred

1. Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
2. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
3. Indian Penal Code, 1860