1997 (12) TMI 661 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
- Anticipatory bail application under Section 438 of CrPC
- Allegations of funding ULFA militants by a company
- Involvement of company officers in illegal activities
- Interpretation of Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Anticipatory Bail Application:
The case involved a company and its officers seeking anticipatory bail after allegations of funding ULFA militants. The Bombay High Court initially granted their prayer, which was later set aside by the Supreme Court. The anticipatory bail applications were transferred to the Gauhati High Court, where they were rejected after a hearing on November 7, 1997.

Allegations of Funding ULFA Militants:
The case revolved around allegations that the company had funded ULFA militants. The investigation revealed that the company had met with top leaders of ULFA, negotiated demands, and funded the organization. The company argued that it had to yield to some demands to protect its employees and tea gardens but denied paying any ransom to ULFA.

Involvement of Company Officers:
The investigation implicated several officers of the company, including the appellants, in illegal activities of ULFA and other militant organizations. The investigating agency was hindered in discovering the extent of involvement due to the denial of custodial interrogation and raids.

Interpretation of Sections 10 and 13 of the Act:
The judgment analyzed the applicability of Sections 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It was found that a prima facie case existed under Section 10 against the appellants for assisting ULFA operations through contributions. However, it was concluded that the appellants were not liable under Section 13 of the Act or the Indian Penal Code offenses, making the question of granting anticipatory bail irrelevant.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court disposed of the appeals with the observation that the offense under Section 10 of the Act is bailable, rendering the question of anticipatory bail unnecessary. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the offenses under the Act and the Indian Penal Code, ultimately leading to the rejection of the anticipatory bail applications for the appellants.