Date of the Judgment: 18 April 2023
Citation: (2023) INSC 392
Judges: V. Ramasubramanian, J. and Pankaj Mithal, J.
Can an individual be granted bail even when the High Court has overturned a lower court’s order of discharge? The Supreme Court addressed this complex issue in a recent case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The case revolves around the legality of detention and the balance between judicial process and individual liberty. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal, delivered the judgment, with Justice V. Ramasubramanian authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The case originates from an FIR registered on 13 December 2019, against Akhil Gogoi and three others for offenses under Sections 120B, 124A, 153A, and 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation, re-registering the FIR as RC-13/2019/NIA-GUW [KMSS-CPI(Maoist)] link case. Akhil Gogoi was arrested on 17 December 2019, and a charge sheet was filed on 29 May 2020.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 13 December 2019 | FIR registered against Akhil Gogoi and others. |
| 17 December 2019 | Akhil Gogoi was arrested. |
| 29 May 2020 | Charge sheet was filed. |
| 07 August 2020 | Special Court rejected Akhil Gogoi’s bail application. |
| 01 July 2021 | Special Court (NIA) discharged Akhil Gogoi. |
| 09 February 2023 | Gauhati High Court overturned the discharge order. |
| 17 February 2023 | Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petitions of accused Nos. 2 and 3. |
| 21 February 2023 | Supreme Court issued notice for limited purpose of considering protection from arrest. |
| 18 April 2023 | Supreme Court disposed of the special leave petition, granting bail to Akhil Gogoi. |
Course of Proceedings
The Special Court (NIA) initially rejected Akhil Gogoi’s bail application on 7 August 2020. Subsequently, on 1 July 2021, the Special Court discharged Akhil Gogoi, leading to his release after 567 days of incarceration. The NIA appealed this discharge order, and the Gauhati High Court overturned the Special Court’s decision on 9 February 2023. The High Court remanded the matter back to the Special Court for fresh consideration on the framing of charges. Initially, accused Nos. 2 and 3 filed special leave petitions which were dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 February 2023. Following this, Akhil Gogoi (A-1) filed the present special leave petition.
Legal Framework
The case involves several key legal provisions:
- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with criminal conspiracy.
- Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section pertains to sedition.
- Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses promoting enmity between different groups.
- Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration.
- Section 18 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: This section relates to punishment for conspiracy.
- Section 39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967: This section deals with the offense of supporting a terrorist organization.
- Section 20 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008: This section allows the NIA to transfer cases to a competent court.
Arguments
Arguments by the Petitioner (Akhil Gogoi):
- The petitioner had already served 18½ months in jail from 17 December 2019 to 1 July 2021.
- After the discharge order, the petitioner had been free for over 21 months.
- The petitioner is a sitting member of the Assam Legislative Assembly, elected in 2021.
- The FIR was in relation to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019.
- Allegations of Maoist ideology were linked to statements made in 2009, which were not proximate to the current FIR.
- A protected witness statement indicated the petitioner did not support violent methods.
Arguments by the Respondent (National Investigation Agency):
- The petitioner has 64 FIRs against him.
- The petitioner is a leader of a terrorist organization, inciting violence.
- The petitioner’s bail application was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
- The petitioner was released due to a wrong discharge order, which was set aside by the High Court.
- The special leave petition should not be converted into a bail application.
- Statements of protected witnesses show the petitioner does not deserve sympathy.
Submissions Table
| Petitioner’s Submissions | Respondent’s Submissions |
|---|---|
| ✓ Served 18½ months in jail. | ✓ 64 FIRs against the petitioner. |
| ✓ Free for over 21 months after discharge. | ✓ Petitioner is a leader of a terrorist organization. |
| ✓ Sitting member of the Assam Legislative Assembly. | ✓ Bail application dismissed by the Supreme Court. |
| ✓ FIR related to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. | ✓ Released due to a wrong discharge order. |
| ✓ Maoist ideology allegations linked to distant past (2009) statements. | ✓ Special leave petition should not be converted into a bail application. |
| ✓ Protected witness statement indicates no support for violent methods. | ✓ Statements of protected witnesses show the petitioner does not deserve sympathy. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the petitioner should be protected from arrest, considering the High Court had reversed the discharge order and remanded the matter back to the Special Court.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the petitioner should be protected from arrest after the High Court reversed the discharge order. | Yes, the petitioner was granted bail. | The court considered the period of incarceration, the petitioner’s conduct after release, and the fact that the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The court also noted that the petitioner was a sitting MLA and had not indulged in any unlawful activity after release. |
Authorities
The court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The judgment primarily focused on the facts of the case and the legal provisions involved.
| Authority | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|
| Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Mentioned as one of the sections under which the FIR was registered. |
| Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Mentioned as one of the sections under which the FIR was registered. |
| Section 153A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Mentioned as one of the sections under which the FIR was registered. |
| Section 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | Mentioned as one of the sections under which the FIR was registered. |
| Section 18 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Mentioned as one of the sections under which the FIR was registered. |
| Section 39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 | Mentioned as one of the sections under which the FIR was registered. |
| Section 20 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 | Mentioned as the section that allows the NIA to transfer cases to a competent court. |
Judgment
| Submission by the Parties | How the Court Treated the Submission |
|---|---|
| Petitioner had already served 18½ months in jail. | The Court considered the period of incarceration as a factor in granting bail. |
| Petitioner was free for over 21 months after discharge. | The Court noted this period of freedom without unlawful activity as a factor. |
| Petitioner is a sitting member of the Assam Legislative Assembly. | The Court acknowledged this as a relevant fact. |
| FIR related to protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019. | The Court considered the context of the FIR. |
| Maoist ideology allegations linked to distant past (2009) statements. | The Court noted the lack of proximity of these statements to the current FIR. |
| Protected witness statement indicates no support for violent methods. | The Court considered this statement as a factor in favor of the petitioner. |
| Petitioner has 64 FIRs against him. | The Court did not allow this to outweigh other considerations. |
| Petitioner is a leader of a terrorist organization. | The Court did not find this to be a sufficient reason to deny bail. |
| Petitioner’s bail application was dismissed by the Supreme Court. | The Court noted that the dismissal was “at this stage” and did not preclude granting bail now. |
| Petitioner was released due to a wrong discharge order. | The Court acknowledged the reversal of the discharge order but still granted bail. |
| Special leave petition should not be converted into a bail application. | The Court held that it could grant a smaller relief while rejecting a larger one. |
| Statements of protected witnesses show the petitioner does not deserve sympathy. | The Court did not find this to be a sufficient reason to deny bail. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court:
- The court considered the legal provisions under which the FIR was registered, but the main focus was on the facts of the case and the circumstances of the petitioner’s detention.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:
- The petitioner had already served a significant period of incarceration (567 days).
- The petitioner had been a free man for over 21 months without any unlawful activity.
- The petitioner is a sitting member of the Assam Legislative Assembly.
- The matter was remanded back to the Special Court for fresh consideration, meaning the charges were not yet finalized.
- The offenses under the Indian Penal Code, 1860, carried a maximum sentence of 3 years, and the petitioner had already served more than half of that as an undertrial.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Period of Incarceration | 30% |
| Conduct after Release | 25% |
| Petitioner is a sitting MLA | 20% |
| Matter Remanded for Fresh Consideration | 15% |
| IPC Offenses Maximum Sentence | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 70% |
| Law | 30% |
The court reasoned that since the investigation was complete and the petitioner was not a convicted criminal, there was no purpose in remanding him to custody. The court also emphasized that the petitioner had already served a significant portion of the maximum sentence for the IPC offenses as an undertrial.
The Supreme Court stated, “It is true that the application for bail filed by the petitioner, during the period when investigation was pending, was rejected upto this Court. But as rightly pointed out by Shri Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel, this Court recorded in its order dated 11.02.2021 that it was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner “at this stage ”. Therefore, the dismissal of the application for bail at the time when investigation was pending, is no ground to reject the prayer for protection against arrest, now made by the petitioner.”
The court also noted, “Admittedly the petitioner has suffered incarceration for about 567 days from 17.12.2019 to 01.07.2021. He has been out as a free man for the past more than 21 months. It is important to note that his freedom was secured not by an order of bail, but by an order of discharge passed by the Special Court, which has now been reversed by the High Court. Nothing has been brought on record to show that during this period of 21 months, when the petitioner has been a free man, he has indulged in any unlawful activity.”
The court further observed, “Except in cases of preventive detention, the purpose of detaining a person in police/judicial custody, is either to facilitate fair and proper investigation or as a measure of penalty after conviction. In this case, (i) the investigation is over and (ii) the petitioner is not yet a convicted criminal. Therefore, we do not think that any purpose will be served in allowing the Special Court to remand him to custody and then enabling him to move an application for bail.”
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to reverse the discharge order, but granted bail to the petitioner.
- The Court emphasized that the purpose of detention is either for investigation or as a penalty after conviction.
- The court considered the period of incarceration, conduct after release, and the fact that the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
- The Court balanced the need for legal process with individual liberty.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the release of the petitioner on bail, pending trial, subject to terms and conditions imposed by the Special Court (NIA), Guwahati.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of the case is that even when a High Court reverses a discharge order, the Supreme Court can grant bail to the accused, considering the specific circumstances of the case, including the period of incarceration, conduct after release, and the fact that the matter is remanded for fresh consideration. This case highlights the court’s approach to balancing the legal process with the protection of individual liberty.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Akhil Gogoi vs. National Investigation Agency demonstrates a nuanced approach to cases involving the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. While upholding the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the importance of individual liberty and the need to avoid unnecessary detention, especially when the investigation is complete and the matter is pending for fresh consideration. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing legal procedures with the protection of fundamental rights.
Category
Parent Category: Criminal Law
Child Category: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Child Category: Bail
Child Category: Section 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 124A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 153A, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 153B, Indian Penal Code, 1860
Child Category: Section 18, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Child Category: Section 39, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967
Child Category: Section 20, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in the Akhil Gogoi case?
A: The main issue was whether Akhil Gogoi should be protected from arrest after the Gauhati High Court reversed the Special Court’s order of discharge and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision but granted bail to Akhil Gogoi, pending trial, subject to conditions imposed by the Special Court.
Q: Why did the Supreme Court grant bail despite upholding the High Court’s order?
A: The Supreme Court considered that Akhil Gogoi had already served a significant period of incarceration, had been free for over 21 months without any unlawful activity, and was a sitting member of the Assam Legislative Assembly. The court also noted that the matter was remanded for fresh consideration.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s approach to balancing the legal process with the protection of individual liberty. It emphasizes that detention should not be prolonged unnecessarily, especially when the investigation is complete and the matter is pending for fresh consideration.
Q: What were the main legal provisions involved in this case?
A: The case involved Sections 120B, 124A, 153A, and 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Sections 18 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. It also touched upon Section 20 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.