Guwahati Grenade Blast 2019 | High Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused In Custody For Over 4.5 Years Citing Insufficient Evidence

A bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Malasri Nandi granted him bail noting that the evidence adduced against Borah does not indicate that he was involved in the blasting of the grenade, though, the bench added, he might be a member of the terrorist organisation.

“In the present case, assuming that the appellant is a member of the terrorist organisation, the appellant can be convicted for being a member of a terrorist organisation. However, keeping in view the facts of this case, the further requirement of the respondents would be to show that he was involved in the blasting of the grenade along with the (A-1) Pappu Koch”, the Court noted as it refused to rely on Section 161 Statements made by the witnesses linking the accused to crime.

The case in brief

As per the prosecution's case, a grenade was allegedly thrown by the accused No 1 i.e., Pappu Koch Bokoliyal/A1 [an alleged member of ULFA(I)] causing a blast near the Guwahati Central shopping mall on May 15, 2019.

Subsequently, an FIR was lodged under Sections 325/326/307/121 IPC read with Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substance (for short, ES) Act and Sections 10/13/16/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, (for short, the UA(P) Act) 1967. In connection with the incident, the accused (Borah) was arrested by the state police on May 17, 2019.

Later on, given the gravity of the offence, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India transferred the probe into the matter to the NIA. After the completion of the investigation, a consolidated charge sheet was submitted by the NIA against eight accused persons including the appellant-accused.

It was alleged that the appellant had provided logistic support to Pappu Koch (A1), who was a member of ULFA(I) which was a terrorist organisation. It was alleged that the appellant had communicated 33 times with Pappu Koch through his mobile phone before the blast.

The trial court framed charges under Sections 18, 19, 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act against the appellant in February 2022, to which he pleaded 'not guilty' and claimed to be tried.

Seeking bail in the case, the appellant moved the HC wherein his counsel argued that two accused had already been granted bail and to date, only 20 out of 177 prosecution witnesses have been examined, despite the appellant being in judicial custody for more than four years seven months and twenty-two days.

On the other hand, Dy. SGI appearing for the respondent, NIA, argued that the appellant had stated during the interrogation that he had given shelter to him after the blast and had admitted that he was directly involved in the grenade blast. It was also submitted that as per the CDR of the mobile of the appellant, he had been in constant touch with A1.

Court's observations

At the outset, the Court took into account the mandate of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA which provides that a person accused under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA cannot be released on bail unless the Public Prosecutor has been allowed to be heard. It further provides that such an accused person shall not be released on bail, if the Court thinks, on a perusal of the case diary or the charge sheet, that there is reasonable ground for believing that the accusation against such a person is prima facie true.

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that though the trial court had found that a prima facie case was made out against the appellant, however, this fact wouldn't preclude the HC from considering afresh, whether the accusation against the accused person is prima facie true (referred KA Najeeb case).

The Court further observed that even assuming that the appellant is a member of the terrorist organisation, the appellant can be convicted for being a member of a terrorist organisation, however, it was still required to prove that he was involved in the blasting of the grenade along with the A-1.

The Court added that the evidence already adduced does not indicate that he was involved in the blasting of the grenade, though he might be a member of the terrorist organisation.

Consequently, stressing that the contents of the alleged communication between the appellant and (A-1) was not known to link him to the grenade blast and the fact that he has been in judicial custody for four years, seven months and twenty-two days, that only 20 out of the 177 prosecution witnesses have been examined and two co-accused have already been released on bail, the Court deemed it fit to grant him bail keeping in view Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Case title - Indra Mohan Bora vs National Investigation Agency [Crl.A./275/2023]

Case citation:

Click Here To Read/Download Order