Home » India » ‘Mere possession of Maoist materials cannot be considered an offence’

‘Mere possession of Maoist materials cannot be considered an offence’

Posted by on May 31, 2011 0 Comment

Observing that mere possession of materials eulogising Maoists ideologies would not be considered an offence of sedition, the Supreme Court on Tuesday granted bail to Kolkata-based businessman Piyush Guha, the co-accused, along with rights activist Binayak Sen in the sedition case, who was sentenced to life imprisonment.

A vacation Bench of Justices G.S. Singhvi and C.K. Prasad, after hearing counsel Prashant Bhushan for the petitioner and senior counsel U.U. Lalit for the Chhattisgarh government, suspended the sentence and directed Mr. Guha’s release on bail upon his executing of a bail bond for Rs.2 lakh with two sureties of Rs.1 lakh each.

Mr. Guha was convicted along with Dr. Sen and Naxal ideologue Narayan Sanyal. Dr. Sen was granted bail by the Supreme Court after the Chhattisgarh High Court had denied him it. In his appeal, Mr. Guha pleaded that he be granted bail, saying that he had already spent four years in jail.

‘Different footing’

Mr. Lalit argued that there was enough evidence to show that Mr. Guha he was distributing, circulating and using Maoist bulletins to incite violence. Mr. Guha, he said, could not be compared with Dr. Sen.

When Justice Singhvi asked whether there was any other material that pointed to Mr. Guha’s overt involvement in the crime, Mr. Lalit said he had deep links with Sanyal. Mr. Guha, he said, had eulogised the killings of police. He had also been cited as an accused in the Purulia arms drop case, though a charge sheet was yet to be filed.

Semantic differences

Justice Prasad observed: “We can’t go on the basis of surmises and conjectures.” When Mr. Lalit said that there were materials in Mr. Guha’s possession praising his work that he had done a “commendable job”, Justice Singhvi said “it is very difficult to give fixed meaning to these words. It is said in a different context and in a different perspective; the meaning changes from person to person.”

Justice Singhvi reminded the counsel as to how the word “revolution” was used during the freedom-struggle and told the counsel: “The court cannot convict a person unless there is evidence. Except possession of some [Maoist] materials, there is no other evidence. Some persons have an ideology that revolution is the only way to reform the society. Can this be said [to be] an offence?”

Mr. Lalit argued against granting of bail, observing that communication with Sanyal was found in his possession, that the trial court had already rendered a finding of guilt and an appeal was pending in the Chhattisgarh High Court.

Justice Prasad told counsel: “A large number of materials and news comes to us. Such materials can come to this person also. Is possession of some pamphlets or letters an offence?”. Hindu

No comments yet... Be the first to leave a reply!

Leave a Reply