Back
SANJAY KUMAR, M. V. MURALIDARAN
Khumlo Abi Anal @ Ambison – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kumar, CJ. - This appeal, filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, arises out of the order dated 12.10.2020 passed by the learned Special Judge (NIA), Manipur, in Cril. Misc.(B) Case No.10 of 2020 {Ref: Special Trial (NIA) Case No.1 of 2016}. By the said order, the learned Special Judge rejected the bail application of the appellant.
2. The appellant is one of the accused facing trial in Special Trial (NIA) Case No.1 of 2016. This case originally related to FIR No.14(6)2015 TPL-PS registered on the file of Tengnoupal Police Station under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 121 and 121-A IPC; Section 25 (1-C) of the Arms Act, 1959; Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; and Sections 16 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The case was then handed over to the National Investigation Agency and registered as NIA Case No.RC-03/2015/NIA-GUW.
3. The appellant was initially arrested on 11.06.2015 in connection with FIR No.203(6)2015 Lamphel PS, registered under Sections 17 & 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He was again arrested on 20.06.2015 in connection with FIR No.179(12)2009 Lamphel PS, registered
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need to balance the legal provisions with the right to speedy trial and the right of the accused to grant of bail, considering the circumstance....
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
Bail – A Constitutional Court is not strictly bound by prohibitory provisions of grant of bail in 1967 Act and can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to release an accused on bail who has been ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and its application in granting bail to the accused durin....
The court confirmed that under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail cannot be granted if there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
The judgment established that the continued detention of the appellant was in violation of his right to personal liberty, and he was entitled to bail considering the delay in trial and the gravity of....
The court upheld the denial of bail under the UAP Act, emphasizing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence against the appellant.
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....
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
