The court's decision emphasized the importance of reasonable grounds for tentatively believing the accusations against the appellants, as a basis for rejecting the prayer for bail.

JUDGMENT

1. The Court is conscious of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Balchand, (1977) AIR SC 2447: (1977) 4 SCC 308, which is quoted below:-

"2. The basic rule may perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like, by the petitioner who seeks enlargement on bail from the court. We do not intend to be exhaustive but only illustrative.

3. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioner to avoid the course of justice and must weigh with us when considering the question of jail. So also the heinousness of the crime. "

Similarly, the Court is also conscious of the observations made by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Sanjay Chandra Vs. C.B.I., (2012) 1 SCC 40, which is quoted below:-

"21. In bail applications, generally, it has been laid down from the earliest times that the object of bail is to secure the appearance of the accused person at his trial by reasonable amount of bail. The object of bail is neither punitive nor preventative. Deprivation of liberty must be considered a punishment, unless it can be required to ensure that an accused person will stand his trial when called upon. The courts owe more than verbal respect to the principle that punishment begins after conviction, and that every man is deemed to be innocent until duly tried and duly found guilty.

22. From the earliest times, it was appreciated that detention in custody pending completion of trial could be a cause of great hardship. From time to time, necessity demands that some un-convicted persons should be held in custody pending trial to secure their attendance at the trial but in such cases, 'necessity' is the operative test. In this country, it would be quite contrary to the concept of personal liberty enshrined in the Constitution that any person should be punished in respect of any matter, upon which, he has not been convicted or that in any circumstances, he should be deprived of his liberty upon only the belief that he will tamper with the witnesses if left at liberty, save in the most extraordinary circumstances.

23. Apart from the question of prevention being the object of a refusal of bail, one must not lose sight of the fact that any imprisonment before conviction has a substantial punitive content and it would be improper for any Court to refuse bail as a mark of disapproval of former conduct whether the accused has been convicted for it or not or to refuse bail to an un-convicted person for the purpose of giving him a taste of imprisonment as a lesson."

2. Heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. Sathya Narayana learned standing counsel for the respondent.

3. This appeal under section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "NIA Act" for short) is directed against the impugned order dated 08.07.2020, passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam in Misc. Case (NIA) No. 10/2020, thereby rejecting the prayer for bail to the appellants.

4. On 10.12.2019, the Sub- Inspector of Police, posted in Chabua P.S. lodged an FIR stating, inter alia, that on 09.12.2019 at about 7.00 pm. when he along with his staff and the Addl. S.P. (HQ) were performing their law and order duty at Chabua Town, there was a gathering of about 6,000 persons to protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (hereinafter referred to as "CAA" for short). The crowd was headed by one Akhil Gogoi and it blocked the railway track as a part of their economic blockade and the effort of the District Administration to remove the blockade went in vain. It was also stated that the leader of the crowd and some others criminally conspired against the police and they threw stone