M. K. Mukherjee, J. - (1.) Leave granted in all these petitions. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) On a First Information Report (F.I.R.) lodged by the Superintendent of Police, Special Operation Unit (SOU), Assam, a case under Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code and 10 and 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ('Act' for short) was registered by the SOU Police Station. The F.I.R. was based on reports collected from various parts of the State of Assam regarding secessional activities of some militant organisation including United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA). In connection with that case three ULFA activists were arrested by the police at Mumbai Airport on August 23, 1997. It is alleged that their interrogation revealed that their hotel bills and the medical bill of one of them, namely Mrs. Pranati Deka, who was admitted in a hospital for child birth, were borne by TATA Tea Company Ltd. ('Company' for short) under instructions from, amongst others, Shamsher Singh Dogra, the General Manager of the Company. A few days later, a report appeared in various newspapers circulating throughout the country of a Press Conference held by the Director General of Police, Assam to the effect that the Company had not only paid the personal bills of top ULFA militants but had also paid money, which ran to several lakhs, to ULFA on various occasions. On perusal of the report Shri R. K. Krishna Kumar, Shri S. Kidwai and Shri K. Sridhar, the Managing Director, Executive Director and a Consultant of the Company respectively, (the three appellants before us) apprehended that they might be arrested in connection with the above case. They then filed separate applications before the Bombay High Court under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that they might be directed to be released forthwith in the event of their arrest at the instance of the Director General of Police of Assam in connection with the above case, or any other case that may be filed concerning the allegations of funding of ULFA militants. Their prayer was allowed by the Bombay High Court; and aggrieved thereby the State of Assam preferred appeals in this Court after obtaining special leave. This Court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court as it was passed ex parte and transferred the anticipatory bail applications filed by the appellants to the Gauhati High Court for disposal by a Division Bench. This Court, however, permitted the appellants to continue on the anticipatory bail granted by the Bombay High Court till November 7, 1997. Pursuant to the said direction the applications for anticipatory bail were heard on November 7, 1997 by a Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court and the prayer of appellants was rejected. Hence these appeals at their instance.
(3.) Briefly stated, the case of the appellants, as can be culled out from the affidavits (and the annexures thereto) filed before this Court, is as under: (a) The Company owns 21 tea gardens in the State of Assam and has 21,000 employees in its roll. The company have had been the targets of extortion, killing and kidnapping by the militant organisations, including ULFA. In the past several attempts had been made to intimidate the employees of the Company and make ransom demands on it. In the year 1993, Mr. B. Bordoloi, a Senior Executive of the Company stationed at Gauhati, was captured by one of those militant organisations and kept in detention for a period of eleven months. Though the Company was pressurized by the public, and the family of Mr. Bordoloi in particular, to pay the ransom demanded by the militant organisation for securing his release it refused to do so. Later on ULFA repeatedly made several demands on the Company in the forms of a tax for each of the tea estates owned by it, walkie talkie sets etc. On each of such occasions the Company brought the demands to the notice of the appropriate authorities of the Central Government either personally through their officers or by letters and the Central Government had put the Company in touch with its Intelligence Bureau. (b) According to the Company it was the Central Intelligence Agency which advised it to continue negotiations with the militants but not to pay ransom/protection money to them. Though the Company insisted that it would not make any payment of unlawful money to the militants it formulated several social and community welfare schemes for the people of Assam. The Company asserts that all negotiations with militant organisations took place with the knowledge and guidance of Central Government agencies. (c) While admitting that the Company negotiated with the UlFA, that some of its officers met some leaders of that organisation in Bangkok in connection with their demands, and that it paid the hospital bill and hotel bills of their members in Mumbai it has submitted that to protect the larger interest of the employees of the Company and its tea gardens, it was compelled to yield to some of the demands of the organisation. The Company, however, categorically denied to have paid any ransom to the ULFA or any other militant organisation. ;