[Kerala Maoist case] Supreme Court grants bail to UAPA accused Thwaha Fasal

The Supreme Court on Thursday granted bail to Thwaha Fasal, a journalism student in his twenties, accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly having Maoist links..The judgment was delivered by a Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and AS Oka in the bail plea filed by Fasal, against Kerala High Court's verdict to cancel bail granted to him by the special court."The High Court order dismissing the bail plea is set aside. Order of the special court is restored," the Supreme Court ordered..The Court said that it examined the material against both the accused in the context of sub-section (5) of Section 43D. "Taking the materials forming part of the charge sheet as it is, the accusation against both the accused of the commission of offences punishable under Sections 38 and 39 (UAPA Act) does not appear to be prima facie true," it concluded..The Bench also confirmed the bail granted by the lower court and High Court to co-accused Alan Shuhaib, a third-year law student. In this regard, the Court dismissed the appeal filed by National Investigation Agency (NIA) against the High Court verdict."Appeal by union is dismissed," the Court said..Both youths from Kerala were arrested in November 2019. The trial court had granted them bail. The Kerala High Court had cancelled Fasal’s bail while not interfering with Shuhaib’s..The chargesheet filed by the NIA accused the youths of harbouring and associating with banned Maoist outfit..Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, for the NIA, had argued that the youths, by inference, were ‘members’ of the banned organisation. Members, if found guilty, can be sentenced upto life in prison under UAPA. In contrast, association or supporting a banned organisation attracts either fine or only a few years in prison under the Act..The Court held that mere association with a terrorist organisation as a member or otherwise will not be sufficient to attract the offence under Section 38 of UAPA Act unless the association is with intention to further its activities. "Even if an accused allegedly supports a terrorist organisation by committing acts referred in clauses (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of Section 39, he cannot be held guilty of the offence punishable under Section 39 if it is not established that the acts of support are done with intention to further the activities of a terrorist organisation. Thus, intention to further activities of a terrorist organisation is an essential ingredient of the offences punishable under Sections 38 and 39 of the 1967 Act" the judgment said.Read more about the judgment here..[Read Judgment]