Madan B. Lokur, CJ

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal against an order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the Special Judge, NLA, Assam, Guwahati in Misc Bail Application No. 17/2011 declining bail to the appellant. In our opinion, bail ought to have been granted to the appellant.

2. The appellant has been in custody since 18.08.2010 and is accused of offences under Sections 120(B), 121, 121(A) and 122 of the IPC read with Sections 16, 17, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. A charge sheet has been filed on 14.02.2011 against the appellant in respect of these offences, in which she is Accused No. 14.

3. While the offences appear to be rather serious, the allegations against the appellant are completely innocuous and belie the provisions of the statutes concerned.

4. The allegations contained in the charge sheet against the appellant are mentioned only in paragraph 17.28 thereof. This paragraph reads as follows:-

17.28. In pursuance of the said conspiracy accused Mrs. Londhoni Devi (A-14) as an active member of the proscribed terrorist organization, UNLF had remained associated with every act of commission and omission of UNLF carried out inside and outside India. The accused as a member of UNLF in pursuance of the conspiracy as investigated had coordinated and organized activities of UNLF. In furtherance of such conspiracy, Mrs. Londhoni Devi (A-14) had used different mobile phones in assumed names and identities. UNLF, upon her arrest had made desperate attempts to bail her out so as to continue the ongoing conspiracy of waging war against India.

5. The conspiracy referred to above in paragraph 17.28 of the charge sheet is stated to be a conspiracy of waging war against India. Not an iota of evidence, or even suggestion, has been pointed out to us that the appellant is a conspirator in waging war against India.

6. The substantive allegations made against the appellant suggest:

(i) That she is an active member of a terrorist organization called the United National Liberation Front (UNLF);

(ii) That she is associated with every act of commission of the UNLF carried out inside and outside India;

(iii) That she, in pursuance of the conspiracy of waging war against India had coordinated and organized activities of the UNLF;

(iv) That she had used different mobile phones in assumed names and identities;

(v) That she was ought to be released on bail at the instance of the UNLF so as to continue the conspiracy of waging war against India.

7. As can be seen from the allegations made against the appellant, they are extremely general in nature. Not a single specific act has been attributed to her.

8. During the course of submissions before us, learned counsel for the appellant referred to the statements made by two witnesses who are the only persons to have been mentioned the appellant.

9. To appreciate the allegations, it is necessary to rephrase the statements of these two witnesses. The first witness is PW 6, that is, Panidhar Das. This witness is the landlord of the appellant's husband in Guwahati. The only tiling that he says in his statement is that Jeeten Singh (husband of the appellant) had confessed before the police that he and the accused are members of a banned organization, that is, UNLF in Manipur. This witness does not say anything more than what we have mentioned above.

10. The second witness is PW 40 that is, Ms. Wangkheimayum Amusana. This witness appears to be an old friend of the appellant. All that she says is that the appellant and her husband were active members of the UNLF. Even though she was aware of this, she nevertheless continued her friendship with them because the appellant was her close friend since childhood. The witness does not say anything win regard to the role of the appellant in the activities of the UNLF.

11. The above is the only evidence brought on record to suggest that the appellant is waging war against India and that she has violated the provisions of the Unlawful Activities