Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
Sanjay Kumar, M.V. Muralidaran, JJ.
Khumlo Abi Anal @ Ambison - Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 13 of 2020
Decided On : 07-03-2022
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT - Bail Application - Sections 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of Section 17 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 and Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which deal with protection of witnesses. The court also considered the proviso to Section 43D (5) of the Act of 1967, which details modified application of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, to offences punishable under the Act of 1967. The court highlighted the legal provisions and their interpretations in reaching the decision to grant bail to the appellant.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a bail application in relation to his trial under Sections 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The appellant had been incarcerated for over six and a half years, and the trial was not likely to conclude in the near future. The court analyzed the legal provisions and the evidence presented, and found insufficient material to believe that the accusations against the appellant were true. The court also considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the trial's progress.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant had spent sufficient jail-time, and the trial was not likely to conclude anytime soon. The court concluded that the appellant was entitled to grant of bail, considering the legal provisions and the circumstances of the case.
Issues: The issues included the interpretation of legal provisions related to protection of witnesses, modified application of certain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and the proviso to Section 43D (5) of the Act of 1967. The court also considered the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the trial's progress and the appellant's lengthy incarceration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision to grant bail was based on the insufficiency of material to believe that the accusations against the appellant were true, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the trial's progress, and the appellant's lengthy incarceration. The court also emphasized the need to balance the legal provisions with the right to speedy trial and the right of the accused to grant of bail.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the order denying bail to the appellant, and directing the release of the appellant on bail pending trial, subject to stringent conditions.
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 under Sections 387 & 400 IPC. On 29.06.2015, he was informed that he was placed under arrest in relation to FIR No.14(6)2015 Tengnoupal PS also.
4. Charge-Sheet dated 19.12.2015 was filed in NIA Case No.RC-03/2015/NIA-GUW against the appellant in January, 2016. The appellant was shown as A-3 therein. This Charge-Sheet pertained to the appellant alone. Altogether, 31 other accused remained to be charge-sheeted as on that date. Charges were framed against the appellant on 16.04.2016 under Sections 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The charges framed against him read as under:
'Firstly, that on or about 4th June, 2015, you conspired, abetted the commission of a terrorist act of attacking a convoy of 6 Dogra Regiment of Indian Army at Paraolon, Chandel District, P.S. Tengnoupal, killing a total of 18 army personnel and grievously injuring 15 army personnel, thereby committed the offence punishable U/S 18 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and within my cognizance.
Secondly, that you on or about the same time, was a member of a terrorist organization i.e., NSCN(K), which is involved in terrorist act and thereby committed the offence U/S 20 of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act and within my cognizance.'
5. The first bail application filed by the appellant in Cril. Misc.(B) Case No.42 of 2016 was dismissed by the learned Special Judge (NIA), Manipur, on 07.01.2017. His second bail application in Cril. Misc.(B) Case No.32 of 2017 was dismissed as not pressed on 18.05.2019. His third bail application in Cril. Misc.(B) Case No.43 of 2019 was dismissed by order dated 29.06.2019. The subject bail application in Cril. Misc. (B) Case No.10 of 2020 was filed by him on 21.02.2020. The National Investigation Agency (for brevity, 'the NIA') filed its reply on 07.03.2020. Dismissal of the said bail application, vide the order dated 12.10.2020, led to the filing of this appeal.
6. Heard Mr. Praveen Kumar Potsangbam, learned counsel for the appellant; and Mr. Kh.Samarjit, learned Special PP for the respondent-NIA.
7. Mr. Praveen Kumar Potsangbam, learned counsel, would contend that the learned Special Judge erred in interpreting Section 17 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter, 'the Act of 2008'), and Section 44 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (hereinafter, 'the Act of 1967'). He would assert that non-furnishing of copies of the statements of protected witnesses was not in keeping with these provisions. He would contend that the right of the appellant to a fair trial was impaired owing to this lapse. He would assert that, despite the lapse of several years since the filing of the Charge-Sheet, only a handful of witnesses have been examined till date and argue that there is no possibility of the tri
AI
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
