Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
MANISH CHOUDHURY, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
Sri Ajoy Basumatary @ Ajoy @ B. Buhum @ Birkhang Basumatary, Son Of Bolendra Basumatary - Appellant
Versus
The National Investigation Agency, Represented By The Standing Counsel - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL no. 111/2024
Decided On : 30-01-2025
(A) National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 - Section 21(4) - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Sections 16(1)(a), 18, and 20 - Bail application rejected for charge-sheeted accused in a case involving the massacre of thirty individuals by a terrorist organization - The Special Court found reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were prima facie true, barring bail under Section 43D(5) of the UA[P] Act - The trial has faced delays due to the nature of the case and the community involved, but the court emphasized the need for a fair trial. (Paras 1 , 19 , 25 , 101 , 104 )
(B) Right to Speedy Trial - Article 21 of the Constitution of India - The court addressed the prolonged incarceration of the accused, underscoring their right to a speedy trial, but noted that the gravity of the charges and the nature of the crime justified the denial of bail for certain appellants. (Paras 21 , 79 , 100 )
(C) Criminal Conspiracy - The court discussed the distinction between hatching a conspiracy and active participation in a crime, emphasizing that the degree of involvement is crucial in determining bail. (Paras 80 , 81 )
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the evidence presented in the charge-sheets established a prima facie case against the accused, particularly for those directly involved in the violent incident. (Paras 100 , 101 ) (E)
Result: The bail appeals of four appellants were allowed, while the appeals of four others were denied, with conditions imposed for those granted bail.
JUDGMENT
Manish Choudhury, J.
A. The Assail :-
1. The instant criminal appeal, preferred under sub-section [4] of Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency [NIA] Act, 2008, is directed against an Order dated 20.03.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam at Guwahati in Misc. [NIA] Case no. 27 of 2024, which arose out of Special NIA Case no. 2 of 2015.
2. By the Order dated 20.03.2024, the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam at Guwahati rejected a bail application, registered and numbered as Misc. [NIA] Case no. 27/2024, preferred by 8 [eight] nos. of charge-sheeted accused persons, namely, [i] Ajoy Basumatary @ Ajoy @ B. Buhum @ Birkhang Basumatary [A-1]; [ii] Dilip Basumatary @ B. Birbaisha @ Birbhai @ Birbhal @ Lambu [A-2]; [iii] Nitul Daimary @ D. Naihab @ Naihab [A-4]; [iv] Ustad Basumatary @ Dhaneswar Basumatary @ Dapung [A-5]; [v] Pohor Narzary @ Jaan Narzary [A-6]; [vi] Ananta Swargiary @ Agar [A-7]; [vii] Gojen Narzary @ Babul Narzary @ Kantiswar [A-8]; and [viii] Julius Basumatary @ Jujai [A-9], seeking bail in connection Special NIA Case no. 2/2015.
B. The case of the prosecution :-
3. On 25.12.2014, one First Information Report [FIR] came to be lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Biswanath Chariali Police Station by a Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Jinjia Police Out Post, in reference to Biswanath Chariali Police Station General Diary Entry no. 497 dated 23.12.2014. In the FIR, it was stated that when the informant along with one section of SSB and a half- section of Assam Police Battalion was on patrolling duty at Baliranga area of Tinisuti, the team came to learn that the cadres of the terrorist organization, National Democratic Front of Bodoland [NDFB] – Songbijit faction killed thirty Adivashi people at 9 and 10 nos. Line of Sonajuli area under Biswanath Chariali Police Station. Later on, the informant along with the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Biswanath Chariali and an Executive Magistrate visited the place of occurrence and conducted inquest proceedings on the deadbodies, before sending them to Bihali Public Health Centre [PHC] for post-mortem examinations. The team also found two persons who had sustained injuries in the incident and accordingly, they were sent to Biswanath Chariali Civil Hospital for treatment.
4. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Biswanath Chariali Police Station registered the same as Biswanath Chariali Police Station Case no. 310/2014 on 25.12.2014 for the offences under Section 326, Section 307 & Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]; Section 25[1A] & Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; and Section 10 & Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967.
5. Having regard to the gravity of the incident and in compliance of an Order bearing no. F. No. 11011/66/2014-IS.IV dated 27.12.2014 of the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, the National Investigation Agency [NIA] re-registered the case, Biswanath Chariali Police Station Case no. 310/2014 as NIA Case no. RC-05/2014/NIA-GUW dated 30.12.2014 under Section 326, Section 307 & Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code [IPC]; Section 25[1A] & Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959; and Section 10 & Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities [Prevention] Act, 1967 against the suspected cadres of the National Democratic Front of Bodoland [Songbijit], that is, NDFB [S] in short, on the basis of the original FIR and started investigating into the case.
C. The Investigation and the Charge-Sheets under Section 173, CrPC :-
6. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the cadres of the NDFB[S] were involved in a criminal conspiracy and in pursuance of the conspiracy, the incident of killing of those thirty Adivashi / Southal people at Sonajuli village in Sonitpur district of Assam was carried out on 23.12.2014. The outfit, National Democratic Front of Bodoland is a proscribed terrorist organization mentioned in the Fi
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....
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....
Bail under UAPA is an exception; serious charges and prima facie evidence against the accused justify denial of bail.
(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 judgment establishes that prolonged pre-trial detention can infringe on the constitutional right to a speedy trial, justifying bail even under stringent laws.
Bail – Section 436-A of Cr.P.C. does not exclude offences under NDPS Act – Deprivation of personal liberty without ensuring speedy trial is not consistent with Article 21.
Prolonged pre-trial detention violates the right to life and liberty; bail may be granted even for serious charges if trial delay is substantial.
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
