SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1997 Supreme(SC) 1583

1997(10) Supreme 268
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Assam High Court)
M.K. Mukherjee and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
R.K. Krishna Kumar etc. etc. -Appellants
versus
State of Assam & Ors. -Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 1157 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3495                  of 1997)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1158 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3500 of 1997)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1159 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3502 of 1997)
With
Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 1997
(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 3508 of 1997)
Decided on 3-12-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Soli J. Sorabjee, Shanti Bhushan, Arun Jaitley, Sr. Advocates, Mahesh Jethmalani, Arvind Kumar, Upamanyu Hazarika, R.N. Karanjawala, Ms. Nandini Gore, Ms. M. Karanjawala, Advocates.
For the Respondents : K.T.S. Tulsi, Sr. Advocate, Sunil Jain, Vijay Hansaria, Vikas Pawha, Advocates for M/s. Jain Hansaria & Co., Advocates.

Headnote:Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 -Section 438-Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967-Section 10-Anticipatory bail-Managing Director, Executive Director and a Consultant of TATA Tea Company filed applications u/s 438 Cr.P.C.-Allegations of funding ULFA activists, an unlawful association-Materials collected during investigation make out a prima facie case u/s 10 of the Act against appellants-Material stating that they assisted operations of ULFA through contributions and also in other ways-Bailable offence-Anticipatory bail u/s 438 Cr.P.C. cannot be granted for offence u/s 10 of the Act-Direction u/s 438 Cr.P.C. can be issued only in respect of non bailable offence.

       Held : When the materials collected during investigation are judged in the light of the above provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Act, it is apparent that they make out a prima facie case under Section 10 of the Act against the appellants, in that, they have assisted the operations of ULFA (which has been declared as an unlawful association under Section 3 of the Act) through contributions and also in other ways. However, when those material allegations levelled 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 under the aforesaid offences under the Indian Penal Code. Resultantly, the question of granting anticipatory bail to the appellants under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 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. (Para 11)

       

JUDGMENT

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-Leave granted in all these petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. On a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Special Operation Unit (SOU), Assam, a case under Sections 120 B, 121, 121A 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 secessional 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 one of them, namely Mrs. Pranati Deka, who was admitted in a hospital for child birth, were borne by TATA Tea Company Ltd. ( Company for short) under instructions from, amongst others, Shamsher Singh Dogra, the General Manager of the Company. A few days later, a report appeared in various newspapers circulating throughout the country of a Press Conference held by the Director General of Police, Assam to the effect that the Company had not only paid the personal bills of top ULFA militants but had also paid money, which ran to several lakhs, to ULFA on various occasions. On perusal of the report Shri R.K. Krishna Kumar, Shri S. Kidwai and Shri K. Sridhar, the Managing Director, Executive Director and a Consultant of the Company respectively, (the three appellants before us) apprehended that they might be arrested in connection with the above case. They then filed separate applications before the Bombay High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that they might be directed to be released forthwith in the event of their arrest at the instance of the Director General of Police of Assam in connection with the above case, or any other case that may be filed concerning the allegations of funding of ULFA militants. Their prayer was allowed by the Bombay High Court; and aggrieved thereby the State of Assam preferred appeals in this Court after obtaining special leave. This Court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court as it was passed ex parte and transferred the anticipatory 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 in its roll. The company have had been the targets of extortion, killing and kidnapping by the militant organisations, including ULFA. In the past several attempts had been made to intimidate the employees of the Company and make ransom demands on it. In the year 1993, Mr. B. Bordoloi, a Senior Executive of the Company stationed at Gauhati, was captured by one of those militant organisations and kept in detention for a period of eleven months. Though the Company was pressurized by the public, and the family of Mr. Bordoloi in particular, to pay the ransom demanded by the militant organisation for securing his release it refused to do so. Later on ULFA repeatedly made several demands on the Company in the forms of a tax for each of the tea estates owned by it, walkie talkie sets etc.. On each of such occasions the Company brought the demands to the notice of the appropriate authorities of the Central Gov


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top