IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
SUMAN SHYAM, MALASRI NANDI, JJ.
The State, National Investigation Agency – Petitioner
Versus
Akhil Gogoi S/o Late Boluram @ Bolu Gogoi – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2021
Decided On : 09-02-2023
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 39 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 227 and 228 - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 120 (B)/124-A/153A/153B - Criminal conspiracy to commit – Death - Maintenance of harmony - Whoever deliberately or wantonly causes or provokes any riot through illegal - Meant to guarantee that court is convinced that allegation against accused is not groundless and that there is some substance for proceeding against him - Commit Terrorist - Conspired - guilt of accused persons - Whether economic blockade has started he replied in affirmative and encouraged protesters to shut down - Held, Court also find that while exercising jurisdiction sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C Special Judge has travelled way beyond level of sifting of evidence that is permissible at stage of charge framing and instead has gone on to weigh materials produced by prosecution to record a finding on question of guilt of accused persons - A recourse in opinion was neither permissible in law nor called for case - Therefore on a careful reading of impugned judgment and order Court are of considered opinion that impugned judgment has trappings of an order of acquittal rather than an order of discharge - As approach of Special Judge NIA in court considered opinion was clearly erroneous in eye of law having a vitiating effect on impugned judgment - Appeal stands Allowed
JUDGMENT :
SUMAN SHYAM, J.
1. This appeal, preferred by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.07.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, in Special (NIA) Case No. 02/2020 arising out of RC-13/2019/NIA/GUW whereby, all the four respondents/accused persons were discharged by holding that there was no material available on record so as to frame charge against them.
2. The basic allegations brought against the accused persons are to the effect that the accused/respondent No. 1 Sri Akhil Gogoi, (A-1), who is the leader of an organization called Krishak Mukti Sangram Samiti (KMSS), had conspired with the other three accused persons impleaded as respondent Nos. 2,3 and 4 i.e. A-2, A-3 and A-4, so as to commit terrorist acts in association with the banned terrorist organization CPI (Maoist) and thereby indulged in mass mobilization of public so as to cause economic blockade and paralyse the Government machinery. In the process, they have disrupted essential services and disturbed the harmony between the various communities. On 13.12.2019 the Sub-Inspector of Police, Chandmari Police Station had lodged a complaint alleging merger of KMSS with the banned organization CPI (Maoist) alleging that the respondents have abated, conspired, advocated and incited acts preparatory to commission of terrorist acts. It appears that the complaint dated 13.12.2019 was primarily triggered by the State wide protests and agitations launched by various organizations including the KMSS protesting against the CAB/CAA which had ultimately led to sporadic incidents of violence in different parts of the State.
3. Initially, a police case being Chandmari P.S. Case No. 1688/2019 was registered on the basis of the complaint dated 13.12.2019 treating the same as an F.I.R. and the matter was taken up for investigation by the Assam Police. However, the investigation in the aforesaid case was subsequently handed over to the National Investigation Agency (for short ‘NIA’). Consequently, RC-13/2019/NIA/GUW came to be registered whereafter, NIA had carried out the investigation in connection with the aforesaid case. During the course of investigation, NIA had collected oral, documentary as well as technical evidence. On completion of investigation, NIA had submitted charge-sheet against all the four accused persons on 29.05.2020. The charges brought against the four accused persons were under Section 18 read with Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 read with Sections 120 (B)/124-A/153A/153B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
4. The gist of the charges brought against the accused persons, as appearing from the charge-sheet submitted on 29.05.2020 is reproduced herein-below for ready reference:
“16.17
After going through the oral, documentary and technical evidences brought on record during the course of investigation, it is established that accused A-1 had several secret meetings with members of CPI (Maoist) and had sent around 15 cadres/members of KMSS in batches of 05 each to train in camps of CPI (Maoist). They were imparted with training in their ideology, handling of arms & explosives, tactics of mass mobilization to carry seditious activities in garb of opposing lawfully established Government. A-1 along with his associates for a long period has been organizing seditious activities disrupting Government works in the state of Assam, in the name of dissent activities in democracy, which have a tactical resemblance with the modus operandi of the CPI (Maoist), a proscribed organization.
Further, accused A-1, A-2, A-3 and A-4, along with others had organized various meetings in the month of November, December 2019, and conspired to commit terrorist act, by using inflammable substances, to strike terror in section of people, by causing widespread blockade in the State of Assam, thereby paralyzing the Government machinery, causing economic blockade and disruption of services ess
Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and Another
Dr. Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2020) 12 SCC 467
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel vs. State of Gujarat
Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Manzar Sayeed Khan vs. State of Maharashtra
Minakshi Bala vs. Sudhir Kumar and Others
Mohd. Husain Umar Kochra vs. K.S. Dalipsinghji
Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya
Rajender vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Rajbir Singh vs. State of U.P. (2006) 4 SCC 51
State of Bihar vs. Ramesh Singh
State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa
Stree Atyachar Virodhi Parishad vs. Dilip Nathumal Chordia
Union of India vs. Yasmeen Mohd. Zahid
Bail under UAPA is an exception; serious charges and prima facie evidence against the accused justify denial of bail.
Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - Bail granted - Clause (b) of section 21(4) of MCOC Act it becomes evident that it contains an interdict against grant of bail unless Court sa....
(1) Statutory restriction like Section 43-D(5) of UAPA per se does not operate as an impediment on powers of Constitutional Court to grant bail, if a case of infringement of constitutional guarantee ....
The completion of investigation and prolonged judicial custody are significant factors in determining the entitlement to bail under UAPA. The court emphasized the mandatory requirements under Section....
The court upheld the denial of bail for certain accused under the UA[P] Act, emphasizing the prima facie truth of serious charges and the right to a speedy trial, balancing individual liberty against....
The main legal point established is that the grant of bail under UAPA requires a prima facie view of the accused's involvement, balancing of various factors, and imposition of stringent conditions to....
(1) Bail – Statutory restrictions would not come in way of Constitutional Court from granting bail to accused if it finds that right of accused under Article 21 of Constitution of India has been infr....
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.