IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
KALYAN RAI SURANA, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
The National Investigation Agency – Appellant
Versus
Aheto Chophi – Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 165 of 2018
Decided On : 25-08-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B/121/122 - Arms Act, 1959 - 20 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Offence of Criminal conspiracy - Charged - Case of appellant i.e. NIA is that, a written complaint was lodged before Police Station by Superintendent of Police, Zunheboto to effect that Armed Branch Sub-Inspector (ABSI), had misappropriated a huge cache of arms and ammunitions from DEF Unit Kote. Accordingly, the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station registered P.S. Case No.
Findings of the Court:
Appellant/prosecution has, prima-facie, not been able to demonstrate that accusation against respondent (A-3) is true - Satisfaction recorded by the learned Special Court, NIA, in granting bail to respondent (A-3) is not found to suffer from any error apparent or perversity - It cannot be said that said learned Court took into account any irrelevant considerations or failed to take note of any material available in charge-sheet - Before parting with records, Court is inclined to observe that observations made in this order or in impugned order dated passed by learned Special Judge, NIA, in Bail Application No. arising out being made while considering prayer for bail, would not constitute opinion of the Court on merit, which is left open to be decided in course of trial.
Result: Appeal fails and is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
KALYAN RAI SURANA, J.
1. Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned Senior counsel and Standing Counsel, NIA, assisted by Ms. G.D. Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the appellant and Mr. Dhanesh Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State/respondent.
2. By filing this appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the prosecuting agency, i.e. “NIA” for short has assailed the impugned order dated 20.02.2018, passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Nagaland in connection with Bail Application No. 48/2018, arising in connection with RC-03/2013/NIA-GUW under Sections 120B/121/122 of the Indian Penal Code, read with Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, by which the bail was granted to the respondent, Aheto Chophi.
3. The case of the appellant i.e. NIA is that on 28.06.2012, a written complaint was lodged before the Zunheboto Police Station by the Superintendent of Police, Zunheboto to the effect that the Armed Branch Sub-Inspector (ABSI), Kughai Zhimomi, had misappropriated a huge cache of arms and ammunitions from the DEF Unit Kote. Accordingly, the Officer-in-Charge of Zunheboto Police Station registered Zunhoboto P.S. Case No. 28/2012 under Sections 120B/409/121/34 IPC read with Section 25(1-A) of Arms Act, 1959 and read with Section 7 and 8 of the Nagaland Security Regulation, 1962 and Section 29 of the Police Act, 1861.
4. As per the charge-sheet No. 29/2012 dated 04.10.2012, submitted in connection with the said case, during interrogation, the accused ABSI, Kughai Zhimomi (since deceased), had voluntarily admitted that during his tenure as R.O. (Clothing) DEF, Zunheboto, he had misappropriated a huge stocks of arms and ammunitions from DEF Unit Kote and had sold the same to NSCN (K) and NSCN/GPRN faction on various occasions for his own personal gain. The arms and ammunitions which were misappropriated are as follows:
(a) SLR - 21 Nos. with 28 nos. of Magazines.
(b) Carbine-1 no. with 2 nos. of Magazines.
(c) Sten gun-4 nos. with 8 nos. of Magazines.
(d) .303 rifle-16 nos.
Ammunitions:
(1) 7.62 SLR: 500-600 rnds (approx).
(2) .303 BDR: 11,000-12,000.
(3) 9mm ammo: 2000 (approx).
(4) AK ammo: 200 (approx).”
5. Further, in course of investigation, verification of arms, ammunition, clothing and equipments of DEF, Zunheboto during the tenure of accused ABSI Kughai Zhimomi as RO (Clo.) in between the period of 2000 to 2012 was carried out and the following discrepancies were detected as shown below in the table-wise:
“Statement of misappropriated Arms w.e.f. 2000 to 2012
| S. No. | Types of Arms | Misappropriated |
| 1. | SLR | 21 |
| 2. | Carbine | 1 |
| 3. | Sten gun | 11 |
| 4. | .303 rifle | Mk-IV = 19 |
| Mk-III = 23 | ||
| Total = 42 |
Total number of arms lost/discrepancy = 75 Nos.
Statement of misappropriated Magazines w.e.f. 2000 to 2012
| Types of magazine | Misappropriated |
| Sten gun | 29 |
| A.K. Rifle | 3 |
| Carbine | 2 |
| 7.62 SLR | 28 |
Total magazine lost/discrepancy = 62 Nos.
Statement of misappropriated Ammunitions w.e.f. 2000 to 2012
| Types of ammo | Misappropriated |
| 7.62 mm Ammo | 8587 |
| 7.62 x 39 mm Ammo | 1701 |
| .303 BDR | 10285 |
| .303 CTN | 2256 |
| 9mm Ammo | 1988 |
| .38mm ball | 981 |
| .22mm Ammo | 300 |
| Total | 26100 |
Total ammunition missing = 26100 rds.
Statement of misappropriated Bayonet w.e.f. 2000 to 2012
| Types of bayonet | Misappropriated |
| 5.56 INSAS | 1 |
| AK Rifle | 1 |
| 7.62 SLR | 1 |
Total bayonet missing = 3 Nos.
Statement of misappropriated clothing w.e.f. 2000 to 2012
| S. No. | Particular | Misappropriated |
| 1. | Woolen Jersey Khaki | 2210 Nos. |
| 2. | Beret cap N/Blue | 11 Nos. |
| 3. | Woolen Vest | 2726 Nos. |
| 4. | Steel Trunk | 842 Nos. |
| 5. | Ground sheet | 1543 Nos. |
| 6. | Woolen Blanket | 1638 Nos. |
| 7. | B.D. Serge | 1614 |
Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam
Arup Bhuyan vs. State of Assam
There is no material on record to show that the said finding of the learned Special Judge was erroneous.
Bail once granted cannot be cancelled without any compelling reasons.
The court affirmed that continued detention is warranted due to the serious allegations of conspiracy to supply arms to terrorist organizations and the ongoing nature of the trial.
The court upheld the rejection of bail, finding prima facie evidence of the appellant's involvement in arms smuggling under the UAPA, despite his claims of insufficient evidence.
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
The court upheld the bail granted to the accused, emphasizing the importance of a speedy trial and the absence of any bail condition violations, despite serious charges under the UAPA.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.