The Bombay High Court has noted 'Sanatan Sanstha has not been declared as a banned or terrorist organisation or a frontal outfit of any banned terrorist group within the meaning and contemplation of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004.
A bench of Justices Sunil B Sukhre and Kamal Khata said, in fact, the official website of Sanatan Sanstha shows that it is a registered Charitable Trust and its aim is to impart spiritual knowledge to the curious in the society, inculcate religious behavior in the masses and providing personal guidance to seekers for their spiritual upliftment.
"Official website also throws light upon the activities of Sanatan Sanstha. These activities include such initiatives as are taken for spreading of spirituality in the society, organising free of charge lectures and guidance camps on various aspects of spirituality and for initiating members of the society into spiritual practice, holding weekly Satsangs in local languages, guiding about the spiritual science, organising Bal Sanskar Varg / Moral Education Class for children, conducting education on dharma/righteousness and so on," the bench said.
The court granted bail to Pratap Judhisthir Hajra, who was arrested under various provisions of the UAPA among other provisions of the law.
It was alleged that a conspiracy was hatched to destabilise India, which had started in the year 2017 and various discussions were held in the office of the prime accused-Sudhanwa Sudhir Gondhlekar for the purpose.
"All is being said about the accused persons, including the appellant, being members of the organisation- Sanatan Sanstha, which indulges in nefarious and terrorist activities so as to destabilise India by destroying its sovereignty and integrity, with a view to establish Hindu Rashtra in India, but, the most intriguing part of this case is that Sanatan Sanstha is an organisation which has not been declared to be a banned or terrorist organization or a frontal organization of any banned terrorist group within the meaning and contemplation of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2004," the bench said
The court allowed the appeal, saying all these aspects were not considered by the trial court.
