- Home
- /
- News Updates
- /
- Gauhati High Court Admits NIA's...
Gauhati High Court Admits NIA's Appeal Against Discharge Of Assam MLA Akhil Gogoi In Chandmari Case
Sparsh Upadhyay
15 July 2021 2:00 PM IST
The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday admitted National Investigating Agency's appeal against the order of the Special NIA Court discharging him of all the charges in the Chandmari case involving UAPA, sedition, and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.Admitting the appeal, the Bench of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Soumitra Saikia directed that notice be issued to Akhil Gogoi,...
The Gauhati High Court on Wednesday admitted National Investigating Agency's appeal against the order of the Special NIA Court discharging him of all the charges in the Chandmari case involving UAPA, sedition, and other offences under the Indian Penal Code.
Admitting the appeal, the Bench of Justice N. Kotiswar Singh and Justice Soumitra Saikia directed that notice be issued to Akhil Gogoi, among others, within 3 weeks and has also called for the record from the Special Judge's Court, NIA, Assam, Guwahati.
It may be noted that on July 1, Special NIA Judge Pranjal Das had discharged Raijor Dal Chief, Akhil Gogoi of all charges in the Chandmari case while observing thus:
"..from his speeches available on record, Sri Akhil Gogoi (A-1) cannot be imputed with any incitement to violence. There are also no materials to link A-1 with vandalism and damage to property that took place during the said CAA protest due to such agitations led by various organizations."
The Court had declined to frame charges under Sections 120B, 124A, 153A, and 153B of the IPC and Sections 18 & 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 by holding that no prima-facie case has been made out for framing of charges.
Furthermore, the judge had observed:
"Protests in a democracy are sometimes seen to take the form of blockades also, even causing inconvenience to citizens. However, it is doubtful whether such blockades for temporary periods, if unaccompanied by any incitement to violence, would constitute a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UA (P) Act. That in my mind, is beyond the intention of the legislature. There can be other laws to address that."
The allegations against Akhil Gogoi were that he had allegedly conspired to incite hatred and disaffection towards the Government established by law, using the passage of the Citizenship Amendment Bill (CAB) as a pretext and that they also promoted enmity amongst different groups of people.
"In this context, it might be also relevant to mention herein that there are no materials whatsoever, about Sri Akhil Gogoi (A-1) making any imputations prejudicial to unity and integrity of India or national integration." The Court said.
Furthermore, it was also observed that "Only on the basis of the statements of some of the witnesses about A-1 speaking about blockade and closure, it cannot be said that there are prima facie materials to indicate that such talk of the blockade was with an intention to threaten the economic security of India so as to constitute an offence of advocating the commission of a terrorist act. That would not be a correct prima facie deduction, for the purpose of framing charge."
"In view of the materials on record as discussed above, I am of the considered opinion that the omissions and commissions of A- 1 revealed by the materials cannot be prima-facie said to be a terrorist act done with the intention of threatening unity, integrity, sovereignty and security of India or a terrorist act done with the intention to strike terror in the people. Therefore, from the aforesaid deduction, I am of the considered view that it cannot be said that there are no sufficient materials prima-facie for framing charge against the accused A-1 Sri Akhil Gogoi u/s 16 of the UA (P) Act, 1967." the judge had observed.
Case title - The State, National Investigating Agency v. Akhil Gogoi and 3 others
Read Order
