Dr. Anand Teltumbde v. National Investigation Agency, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5174 has not been interfered with.

_____

Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, (1994) 4 SCC 602; Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi v. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya, (1990) 4 SCC 76 and Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat, (1988) 2 SCC 271] were delivered while testing rigorous provisions under The Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987. Same principle would apply in respect of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 as well. Court ought to carefully examine every case.

Mere holding of certain literatures would not ipso facto attract provisions of Section 15(1)(b) of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Moreover, actual involvement in any covert or overt Terrorist Act has not surfaced. Nor there is any credible case of conspiracy.

– Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 639 of 2023].

_____

State Police on 17.04.2018 raided Rona Wilson of Delhi, Surendra Gading of Nagpur, Sudhir Dhawale-Harshali Potdar of Mumbai, Sagar Gorkhe-Deepak Dhaeagale-Jyoti Jagtap-Ramesh Gaychore of Pune. State Police seemed to have had discovered a larger conspiracy of which Shoma Kanti Sen was a part. She stood arrested on 06.06.2018 and has been in detention for almost 6 years. There is not a hint of corroboration of Shoma funding or receiving funds for Terrorism. She is over 66 years and charges have not yet been framed.

Taking cognizance of composite effect of delay in framing charge, period of detention undergone, nature of allegations vis-à-vis materials available in addition to medical condition, Shoma ought not to be denied being enlarged on bail.

Shoma shall ensure her mobile phone remains active and charged.

– Hon’ble Justice Aniruddha Bose, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra, [Criminal Appeal No. 2595 of 2023] decided on 05.04.2024