Hearing on Akhil Gogoi’s Bail Plea: SC Reserves Judgment

Guwahati: Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi was accused by the NIA of inciting violence during the anti-CAA rallies in Assam. The Supreme Court heard his request for bail against the charges brought against him by the NIA on Monday.

A bench comprising of justices V. Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mittal heard the matter today. In spite of this, the court held off on making a decision.

The SC had extended Assam Legislator Akhil Gogoi’s protection from arrest on March 3 until March 13 in a case involving anti-CAA demonstrations and possible ties to Maoists.

Akhil Gogoi, a Sivasagar MLA who spoke out against the federal government during the anti-Citizenship (Amendment) Act demonstrations in Assam, filed a petition with the Supreme Court on February 19 challenging the Gauhati High Court’s decision to allow the special NIA court in Assam to move forward with the filing of charges against him in one of the two cases.

Justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal’s panel postponed the case for another hearing on March 13 due to the petitioner’s attorney’s unavailability.

The bench observed, “Interim protection to continue till next date.”

Even though Akhil Gogoi claimed that the cases against him were the consequence of “political vendetta,” the National Investigation Agency (NIA) had earlier informed the SC that Akhil Gogoi could not be given bail since he is a suspected leader of Maoist activity in Assam.

In February, the bench had noted, “Let notice be served on the standing counsel for the State (NIA), for the limited purpose of considering the grant of protection to the petitioner from arrest pursuant to the impugned order, returnable on February 24, 2023. In the meantime, the petitioner (Akhil Gogoi) shall be protected against arrest in connection with FIR bearing … dated December 14, 2019, Police Station NIA, Guwahati.”

In relation to anti-CAA protests and suspected Maoist ties, the high court had granted the NIA permission to ask that charges be filed in the special court against Akhil Gogoi and three of his accomplices, Dhajya Konwar, Manas Konwar, and Bitu Sonowal. The decision was made as a result of the NIA’s appeal of a special NIA court’s decision to clear the four.

After reviving the case, the high court panel made up of justices Suman Shyam and Malasri Nandi instructed the prosecution to proceed with filing charges against Akhil Gogoi and the others.

Akhil Gogoi’s counsel Santanu Borthakur had said, “The high court has accepted NIA’s plea to reopen the case and frame charges against the four persons. The case will be heard again in the Special NIA Court.”

The other three defendants, who had received bail in the NIA case, were released from custody in the interim. After serving 567 days in prison, Akhil Gogoi was finally freed when the court refused his bail and a special NIA judge absolved him and the other three of all charges.

Akhil Gogoi was among the four who had been ordered to appear today before the special NIA court. Two instances involving Akhil Gogoi and anti-CAA demonstrations are being investigated by the NIA. In one of those cases, the special NIA court had granted him bail; the Gauhati High Court had also upheld it in April 2021.

As the NIA was looking at Akhil Gogoi’s request for bail in the second case involving violence at anti-CAA protests, he remained to be held in judicial custody. Akhil Gogoi and his three friends were freed on July 1st, 2021, by the special NIA court for their alleged involvement in the violent anti-CAA protests in Assam in December 2019.

The court found that Akhil Gogoi’s “talk of blockage” was neither “a terrorist act” nor a threat to the nation’s economic security. The NIA court then requested permission from the Gauhati High Court to file an appeal, enabling the agency to file charges against Akhil Gogoi under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act’s sedition and other provisions (UAPA).

In a sharply worded order, the special NIA court stated that it had deemed the investigation authority’s behaviour and strategy to be, at the very least, “discouraging” in the interest of justice.

The order read, “The court has high expectations from a premier investigating agency like the NIA, entrusted with the profoundly important task of protecting our country and us, citizens from the menace of terrorism. The court hopes and expects that such high standards will be upheld, for the sake of the country and this one will be just an exception.”