Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Suman Shyam, Mir Alfaz Ali, JJ.
(The State) The National Investigation Agency Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. Of India, Rep. By The Superintendent Of Police, NIA – Petitioner
Versus
Akhil Gogoi, S/O Late Boluram @ Bolu Gogoi – Respondent
Crl.A./192 of 2020
Decided On : 09-04-2021
Unlawful Assemblies Act, 1967 - Sections 15/16 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21 – Indian Penal Code - Sections 120(B)/147/148/149/336/ 307/383/326 – Injury – First Information Report – Claim of compensation - By inviting attention of this Court to materials available on record learned senior counsel appearing for appellant submits that respondent had led entire movement which had turned into a violent protest whereby a Railway Station and a police vehicle was burnt down besides spreading sporadic incidents of violence and stone pelting upon police personnel - Is has also been submitted that at instance of respondent a conspiracy was hatched by accused persons to attack a particular community of that locality so as to disturb unity and integrity of country - Accused Nos.3 and 4 had carried out instructions of respondent to such effect –
Finding of the Court:
This Court is conscious of fact that trial is yet to commence in this case – Therefore although learned counsel for both sides have addressed elaborate arguments on various other aspects touching upon merit of case court are not inclined to go into those issues at this stage - Having examined impugned decision of learned trial court in light of materials placed by appellant court are of opinion that impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this court - As regards observations and findings recorded by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the order passed in. Appeal preferred by Accused Nos.3 and 4 court find that there are photographs to show that A-3 and A-4 were brandishing swords before public while taking part in protest rally - Taking note of such materials available in case diary - Learned court below had observed that there was incriminating materials available against those appellant and accordingly rejected their bail prayer - By the order a Division Bench of this court had agreed with such view expressed by learned Judge and dismissed appeal filed by those accused - Therefore it is apparent that judgment and order was passed after taking into consideration of peculiar facts and circumstances of that case and hence said judgment in court opinion would not have any bearing in present appeal
Result:Appeal dismissed
Key Points: - The appeal challenges a High Court order granting bail to the respondent, Akhil Gogoi, after the submission of a charge-sheet [14000301270001]. - The respondent was granted bail by the Special Court, NIA, on furnishing a bond of Rs. 30,000/- [14000301270004]. - The appellant (NIA) argued that the respondent led a violent protest, causing damage to property and injury to police personnel, and conspired to attack a community [14000301270006]. - The appellant contended that the respondent's role was as incriminating as that of co-accused (A-3 and A-4) whose bail was previously rejected [14000301270008]. - The respondent's counsel argued that the charge-sheet did not disclose ingredients to presume guilt under Section 15 of the Unlawful Assemblies (Prevention) Act, 1967 [14000301270010]. - The court analyzed the definitions of "terrorist act" and "unlawful activity" under the Unlawful Assemblies (Prevention) Act, 1967 [14000301270017][14000301270018]. - The court noted that for an act to be a "terrorist act" under Section 15(1)(a), it must be done with the intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, or sovereignty of India, or to strike terror, using specific means [14000301270021][14000301270023]. - The court found that the materials on record, including witness statements and documents, indicated that the respondent delivered provocative speeches leading to violence and damage, but the court considered whether this constituted a "terrorist act" with the requisite intent [14000301270033][14000301270034][14000301270036]. - The court held that the views expressed by the Special Court in granting bail were a possible view, and in cases where two views are possible, an appellate court is hesitant to interfere with a discretionary power [14000301270040][14000301270041]. - The court distinguished the present case from the bail rejection of accused Nos. 3 and 4, noting the presence of photographs showing them brandishing swords [14000301270043]. - The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit [14000301270045].
JUDGMENT :
Suman Shyam, J.
Heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Satyanarayan, Addl. P.P., NIA, appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. K. N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel representing the sole respondent.
2. This appeal, filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.10.2020 passed by the Judge, Special Court, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, in Misc. Case(NIA) No.22/2020 arising out of Special NIA Case No.03/2020, allowing the respondent to go on bail after submission of charge-sheet by the Investigating Agency.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as under :
On 10.12.2019, Sri Tulumoni Duwarah, Sub-Inspector of Police, Chabua Police Station, in the district of Dibrugarh, had lodged an ejahar inter-alia stating that on 09.12.2019, while he was on law and order duty in Chabua Town, a 6000 persons strong crowd, led by the respondent, had caused economic blockade and had pelted stones, one of which had hit him on his face causing grievous injury. In the FIR, it has also been alleged that the mob led by the respondent had tried to murder police personnel on duty. Based on the ejahar dated 10.12.2019, Chabua P.S. Case No.289/2019 was registered under Sections 120(B)/147/148/149/336/ 307/383/326 of the I.P.C. and the matter was taken up for investigation. Subsequently, Sections 15(1) (a)/16 of the Unlawful Assemblies (Prevention) Act, 1967 [herein after referred to as “the Act of 1967”] was added.
4. While the matter was under investigation by the State Police, by the order dated 14.12.2019 passed by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, investigation in the aforesaid police case was entrusted to the appellant (NIA) whereafter, the case was re-registered as RC-01/2020/NIA-GUW. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was laid on 26.06.2020 against the four accused persons including the respondent herein, viz., Sri Akhil Gogoi as accused No.1 (A-1), Sri Jogjit Mohan as accused No.2 (A-2), Sri Bhaskar Phukan as accused No.3 (A-3) and Sri Bhupen Gogoi as accused No.4 (A-4). The respondent (A-1) was already in police custody in connection with another case bearing No.RC-03/19/NIA-GUW and therefore, he was shown arrested in connection with the present case on 01.04.2020.
5. The respondent (A-1) had filed Misc. Case No.NIA/22/2020 seeking his release on bail. By the impugned judgment and order dated 01.10.2020, the learned Judge, Special Court, NIA had allowed the respondent to go on bail on furnishing a bond of Rs.30,000/-with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the Court. The order dated 01.10.2020 is under challenge in this appeal.
6. It appears that the Accused No.2 Jogjit Mohon was granted bail in connection with Chabua P.S. Case No 289/2019 during the stage of investigation conducted by the police. However, the bail application jointly filed by the accused Nos.3 and 4 (A-3 and A-4) was rejected by the learned Special Court, NIA by the judgment and order dated 08.07.2020 passed in Misc. Case No.10/2020. The judgment and order dated 08.07.2020 was assailed by the A-3 and A-4 by filing Criminal Appeal No.171/2020 before this Court. However, the said appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 05.02.2021, thereby upholding the order of the learned Court below.
7. By inviting the attention of this Court to the materials available on record, Mr. Saikia, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant submits that the respondent (A-1) had led the entire movement which had turned into a violent protest, whereby, a Railway Station and a police vehicle was burnt down besides spreading sporadic incidents of violence and stone pelting upon the police personnel. Is has also been submitted that at the instance of the respondent, a conspiracy was hatched by the accused perso
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
