Punishment for harbouring, etc

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Oinam Lukhoi Singh vs The State of Manipur

   High Court 22 Feb 2022 Persuasive (Other High Court)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   For an accused to be prosecuted under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 for harboring a terrorist, there must be: (1) Knowledge that the person is a terrorist; (2) Intention to help the person evade apprehension; and (3) Actual harboring, concealment, or attempt to harbor or conceal. Merely giving a lift to an unknown person without knowledge of their terrorist connections and without any attempt to help them evade apprehension does not constitute the offense. Similarly, for Section 39 of UAPA to apply, the support must be within the meaning of clauses (a), (b), or (c) of Section 39(1) and must be done with the intention to further the activities of a terrorist organization. Confessional statements made to police without the presence of a Magistrate are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and cannot form the basis of prosecution. The confession of a co-accused cannot be treated as substantive evidence against another accused unless the other evidence adduced by the prosecution is satisfactory and the co-accused's confession is used only as corroborative evidence. When no prima facie case is made out and the proceedings have been pending for an unreasonable period without progress, the High Court should exercise its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to quash the FIR.

   On this section: Defines punishment for harboring, concealing or attempting to harbor or conceal any person knowing that such person is a terrorist. The court held that the operative thrust requires intention to help the person evade apprehension, which was absent in this case.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Javaid Ahmad Bhat vs Union Territory Of Jammu And Kashmir

   High Court 03 Apr 2025 Persuasive (High Court) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   When an accused is charged with offences punishable under Chapters IV and VI of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the stringent bail provisions of Section 43-D(5) apply, which requires the court to be satisfied on perusal of the case diary or report that there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true before bail can be granted. At the bail stage, the court cannot minutely appreciate the evidence or go into intricate questions of whether the offences are made out, as such appreciation is expected at the trial stage. If the trial court has properly considered all aspects of the case and rejected bail, the High Court will not interfere unless there is illegality or perversity in the order.

   On this section: Punishment for harbouring terrorists - punishable with imprisonment not less than 3 years but may extend to life imprisonment; falls under Chapter IV

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.