Case Title: INDRA MOHAN BOHRA V. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY REP. BY THE SPECIAL P.P, ASSAM
Case No: CRL.A./275/2023
Decided on: 11 January, 2024
CORAM: JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, JUSTICE MALASRI NANDI
Facts of the Case
The case at hand involves an appeal filed by Indra Mohan Bora against the order dated 08.06.2023, issued by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, rejecting the bail application submitted by the appellant. The background of the case stems from a grenade blast that occurred on 15.05.2019, allegedly thrown by the accused No. (A-1) Pappu Koch Bokoliyal. An FIR was filed, leading to the registration of Geetanagar Police Station Case No.210/2019 under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Explosive Substance Act, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UA (P) Act). Subsequently, the Ministry of Home Affairs directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over the investigation. The appellant, Indra Mohan Bora, is the accused no.(A-5) in the charge-sheet. The appeal challenges the denial of bail based on the impugned order, and the core contention revolves around the appellant’s alleged involvement in providing logistic support to Pappu Koch, a member of the terrorist organization ULFA ( I).
Legal Provisions
Section 43D(5) of UA(P) Act: Governs bail provisions for offenses under UA(P) Act, restricting release on bail unless the Public Prosecutor is heard and the court finds no reasonable ground to believe the accusation is prima facie true. Article 21 of the Constitution: Guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, emphasizing the protection of fundamental rights even during legal proceedings. Supreme Court Decision in KA Najeeb Case: The judgment acknowledges the coexistence of statutory restrictions on bail and constitutional court powers, emphasizing the need to balance both.
Issues
Bail Rejection: The primary issue revolves around the rejection of bail by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, and the grounds on which such denial was based. Accusations Against the Appellant: The case involves accusations against Indra Mohan Bora concerning his alleged association with Pappu Koch and his purported role in supporting the grenade blast incident. Legal Rights Violation: The appellant asserts a violation of his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, contending that prolonged judicial custody without completing the trial infringes upon his constitutional rights. Comparison with Co-Accused: The appellant draws parallels with co-accused Amrit Ballav Goswami and Prakash Raj Konwar, highlighting their release on bail in similar circumstances.
Courts Analysis and Decision
The court analyzed the provisions of Section 43D (5) of the UA(P) Act, recognizing the restrictions on bail but asserting the constitutional court’s authority to grant bail based on Article 21. Referring to the KA Najeeb case, the court emphasized that the statutory restrictions should yield if there is a likelihood of the trial not being completed within a reasonable time, and the period of incarceration exceeds a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. In evaluating the charges against the appellant under Sections 18, 19, 38, and 39 of the UA (P) Act, the court acknowledged the framing of charges but highlighted the need to reevaluate whether the accusations are prima facie true. It noted the absence of evidence linking the appellant directly to the grenade blast and emphasized the inadmissibility of Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements as substantive evidence. The court drew comparisons with the cases of co-accused Amrit Ballav Goswami and Prakash Raj Konwar, both of whom were granted bail. The judgment stressed the lack of evidence indicating the appellant’s direct involvement in the blast and questioned the reliance on statements without evidentiary value. Ultimately, considering the appellant’s prolonged custody, the incomplete examination of witnesses, and the bail granted to similar co-accused, the court granted bail to Indra Mohan Bora. The decision included specific conditions to ensure his attendance at the trial and prevent any interference with witnesses.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
