Sc Paves Way For Bail To Tata Tea Executives

The Supreme Court yesterday defused the prolonged litigation over anticipatory bail to the Tata Tea executives by declaring that they were accused of bailable offences.

The court does not grant anticipatory bail if offences are bailable.

Bail is available as a matter of right if they are arrested.

Tata Tea managing director R K Krishna Kumar, and executives, Sayeed Kidwai and K Sridhar, are fearing arrest on the charge of having met Ulfa militants within and outside India.

Investigation had revealed that the company funded Ulfa and the three executives had a role in the transactions.

The accused had earlier moved the Bombay High Court which granted them anticipatory bail.

 

The Assam government appealed to the Supreme Court, which asked the Gauhati High Court to re-examine the bail applications.

The Gauhati High Court rejected their applications as a result of which they approached the apex court again.

This time, the division bench, consisting of justice M K Mukherjee and justice K T Thomas, declared the law and put an end to all litigation over anticipatory bail applications.

Earlier, the court had not examined the case diaries and therefore this point of law could not be laid down.

The judges said the executives were accused of committing offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Offences (Prevention)

Act. However, on an examination of the case diaries they came to the conclusion that they could be charged only under Section 10 of the Act for which the maximum punishment is two years.

It is also bailable, thus obviating the need for anticipatory bail.

The company, which owns 21 tea gardens in Assam and employs 21,000 people, had been the target of extortion, kidnapping and murder.

According to it, the government intelligence agency had advised it to continue talks with the militants and negotiations did take place in India and in Bangkok.

It admitted paying the hospital and hotel bills of the militants in Mumbai to protect the interest of its employees. In such circumstances, no officer could be held guilty of any offence, the company had argued.