In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-26201 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:14.10.2010 Sanjiv Kumar alias Mintu ....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gazi Mohd. Umair, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 16.5.2010 for the offences under Sections 10, 13, 17, 18 and 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (`Act' – for short) and Section 121 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' – for short). The FIR has been registered on the basis of memo sent by Inspector Lakhbir Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Dhuri. According to the Inspector Lakhbir Singh, he along with other Police officials on a government vehicle was present near Bus Stand, Benra in connection with patrolling and checking. At about 1.10 p.m., a secret information was received that Sanjiv Kumar alias Mintu (petitioner), who is an active member of Moist movement, banned by the Government, was coming to Benra on that day to take part in a meeting. He was standing on the Cr. Misc. No.M-26201 of 2010 [2] metalled Sangrur-Dhuri road which goes to Canada farm house, Sarao. If a raid was conducted, he could be apprehended and anti-Government literature and diaries could be recovered. Information was considered credible and the offenses as mentioned were made out. Accordingly, a memo was sent to Police Station through H.C. Ram Kumar for registration of a case against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is only said to be conducting a meeting and the same cannot be said to be waging a war against the country or indulging in unlawful activities. In fact, it is a democratic way to oppose State policy. It is submitted that the petitioner has been implicated as he has been leading an agitation of the landless Dalit labourers for allotment of 1/3rd share of the Panchayat land on lease during auction which is provided for under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Rules, 1963. It is submitted that the Government is trying to crush all the movements by branding them as Maoist and, in any case, there is nothing to show that the meeting in which the petitioner was to conduct has been declared as unlawful in terms of Section 3 of the Act. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is a member of organization known as Krantikari Mazdoor Union which is banned by the Government. At the time of arrest, he was found in possession of objectionable material which threatened the safety, sovereignty and integrity of the country. He used to incite innocent persons to commit violation acts against the State. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, the Cr. Misc. No.M-26201 of 2010 [3] petitioner is being proceeded against to having committed offence under the Act. Section 2(o) defines “unlawful activity” and Section 2(p) defines “unlawful association”. The unlawful activities in relation to and individual or association, means any action taken by such individual or association whether by committing an act or by words, which relates to cession of a part of the territory of India or which causes disaffection against India. Unlawful association is one which has for its object any unlawful activity or which encourages or aids persons to undertake any unlawful activity, or of which the members undertake such activities or which has for its object any activity which is punishable under Section 153-A or Section 153-B IPC. Section 3 of the Act provides for declaration of an association of unlawful. It is envisaged therein that if the Central Government is of the opinion that any association has become unlawful, it may by notification in the official gazette declare it to be unlawful. The notification is to specify the grounds. In the present case from the material placed on record, it has not been shown as to which association the petitioner is a member and whether the said association has been declared unlawful. Section 10 of the Act provides for penalty for being member of an unlawful association. Section 13 provides for punishment for unlawful activities. Section 17 provides for punishment for raising funds for terrorist act. Section 18 relates to punishment for conspiracy etc. and Section 19 provides for harbouring etc. At this stage, it is not shown as to whether the petitioner has been indulging in any of these activities. Section 121 IPC relates to waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the Government of India. It is not shown that the petitioner has been waging a Cr. Misc. No.M-26201 of 2010 [4] war against the Government of India. The petitioner is in custody since 16.5.2010. His further custody is unnecessary. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The prosecution is to establish and prove its case. In the facts and circumstances, on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur shall be admitted to bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of. October 14, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*