"Not At This Stage": Supreme Court Rejects Bail Application Of Akhil Gogoi In UAPA Case Relating To Anti-CAA Protests

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed plea by peasants' rights activist Akhil Gogoi, challenging the Gauhati High Court order rejecting his bail plea.

A three Judge Bench of Justice NV Ramana, Justice Surya Kant and Justice Aniruddha Bose denied bail at this stage in light of the allegations against Gogoi.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Jaideep Gupta appearing for Gogoi submitted that large scale agitation had taken place in protest for CAA. Its not related to terrorism at all. There were some instances where there was violence at some places but there is no evidence that petitioner was responsible. It does not amount to an act of terrorism on a prima facie basis.

"Cannot consider bail in light of the allegations as of now. Maybe later, you can file an application. " Justice Ramana stated.

"Let the trial proceed. Courts have started functioning now. " Justice Surya Kant observed

The Gauhati High Court rejected the bail plea of peasants' rights activist Akhil Gogoi, in connection with a case registered against him under Sections 120B, 124A, 153B IPC and Sections 18 (Punishment for conspiracy, etc.) and 39 (Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation.) of the UA(P) Act.

Akhil Gogoi filed an appeal under section 21 (4) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 challenging the order dated 13th July 2020, passed by the Special Judge (NIA), Assam, Guwahati in Misc. Case No. 18/2020 arising out of Spl. NIA Case No. 2/2020, thereby rejecting the prayer for grant of bail.

As per the Charge sheet, the Case against Gogoi is that:

• He "led violent protests" during the anti-CAA agitation, which were aimed to strike terror in all sections of people in India, irrespective of caste, creed and religion.
• He associated with proscribed organization CPI (Maoist), and had sent cadres of KMSS (Krishak Mukti Sangram Samity) to train in Maoist camps
• Conspired, advocate, abetted, advised, the commission of terrorist act (as defined in sec. 15(1)(a)(iii) of UA(P) Act)
• Gave provoking speeches, promoted enmity between different classes of people on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language which is pre judicial to maintenance of harmony and caused widespread disharmony and disaffection towards the Government established by the law.
• Conspired and orchestrated the widespread blockade in the state of Assam, thereby paralyzing the government machinery, causing economic blockade.
• Provoked the mobs to cause damage to public property and grievous injury to officials on government duty.

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]