Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The High Court held that constitutional guarantees under Article 21 cannot be defeated by the gravity of allegations under the UAPA, and that the mandate of day-to-day trial under Section 19 of the NIA Act reflects a legislative intent that serious prosecutions cannot be allowed to linger indefinitely.
“The right to make a representation implies that the person detained must be informed of his right to make a representation to the authority that has made the order of detention at the time when he is served with the grounds of detention so as to enable him to make such a representation and the failure to do so results in denial of the right to make representation and renders the order invalid.”
It was argued before the Court that the offences alleged against the appellants were very serious, and they can even be sentenced to imprisonment for life if the charges are proved.
In the present case, the Government of India directed the NIA to investigate a FIR filed by West Bengal Police under multiple laws. The State argued that, even without investigation or supporting material, the order itself claimed the FIR allegations fall under Section 15(1)(a) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
“The purpose of custody parole is to allow a prisoner to attend to pressing humanitarian or personal obligations such as funerals, last rites, or significant family functions, under strict supervision of the authorities. It is a temporary measure, humane in character, that ensures a balance between the interests of justice and human dignity.”
“The present case was not one of mere suspicion but one raising grave suspicion, as the incriminating chats, videos, and photographs detected from the mobile phones stood corroborated by the monetary credits received through international fund transfers.”
“The audio clip and letter found, alleged coercion of ED officers to implicated CM Pinarayi Vijayan and other political leaders in a case involving seizure of 30 kg of gold worth Rs 14.82 crore at the Thiruvananthapuram International Airport on 06-07-2020, which was allegedly marked as ‘Diplomatic Baggage’ and was being sent to the UAE Consulate.”
“If the accused’s plea was accepted, it would amount to usurping the jurisdiction and power vested in the Designated Authority, who had all the powers of a Civil Court under Section 31 of the UAPA for making full and fair enquiry into the matter before it.”
“On 16-04-2022, 5 accused persons came on three two-wheelers, and inflicted grievous injuries on Sreenivasan and killed him by hacking his head and other parts of his body with choppers.”
The Court observed that even though weapons are recovered from one of the accused, it is not the prosecution’s case that those weapons were used for any terrorist activity and/or toppling the Government.
The Court stated that the recovery of incriminating material recovered from the mobile phone of the appellant showing pro-ISIS material showed that the appellant is deeply influenced with the philosophy and ideology of the ISIS.
On 14-12-2023, the Court had remanded them for a period of 7 days.
Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira were charged with several offences under IPC and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and they were alleged to have played an active role in recruitment of and training for cadres of the Communist Party of India (Maoist).
Earlier, the Bombay High Court had denied the plea of Vernon Gonsalves and Arun Ferreira.
Gauhati High Court: The single Bench of Ajit Borthakur, J., has under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, granted bail
Kerala High Court: A Division Bench of A. Hariprasad and N. Anil Kumar, JJ. dismissed the appeals filed by the appellants by
S.O. 1806(E)—Whereas, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) has been enacted to
S.O. 1403(E)—Whereas the Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (Mohd. Yasin Malik faction) (hereinafter referred to as the JKLF-Y), has been indulging in