Gauhati High Court
Amrit Ballav Goswami vs The National Investigation Agency on 10 March, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 GAU 414
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010174932020
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./13/2021
AMRIT BALLAV GOSWAMI
S/O- POBITRA BALLAV GOSWAMI, R/O- LAKHIJURI VILLAGE, P.S.
JAMUGURI, DIST.- GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY
REP. BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, NIA.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR Z KAMAR
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. D K DAS, SC, NIA
BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI Date of hearing : 04/03/2021.
Date of judgement : 10/03/2021.
JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)
Suman Shyam, J
1. Heard Mr. Z. Kamar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N.M. Hazarika, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have also heard Mr. D. K. Das, leanred senior counsel assisted by Ms. Page No.# 2/8 P.K. Darjee, learned counsel and Mr. Vishal Diwedi, learned Public Prosecutor, NIA, for the respondent.
2. This appeal has been preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 assailing the order dated 29/08/2020 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA Court, Assam, Guwahati, in connection with Misc. Case (NIA) 13/2020, rejecting the bail application filed by the appellant.
3. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are these :-
(i) On 15/05/2019, Sri Mukut Chandra Deka, S.I, Geetanagar Police Station had lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge, Geetanagar P.S. informing that on 15/05/2019, when the Police personals from the Geetanagar Police Station was conducting a search operation in front of the Central Mall, R.G. Baruah Road, at about 7-40 p.m., some unknown miscreants threw a grenade on the police party and managed to escape from the scene. Due to the grenade blast, the persons mentioned in the ejahar had received simple and grievous injuries and they have been referred to the Guwahati Medical College & Hospital for treatment. In the ejahar, it was also mentiond that the members of the United Liberation Front of Assam (Swadin) were behind the incident and that the members of the terrorist organization tried to kill peace loving people by causing grievous injury to them. Based on the ejahar dated 15/05/2019, Geetanagar PS Case No. 210/2019 was registered under Section 325/326/307/121 IPC read with Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10/13/16/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
(ii) On 16/05/2019, another FIR was lodged with the Satgaon Police Station in connection with the same incident, based on which another Police case was registered and numbered as Satgaon P.S. Case No. 147/2019 under Section 121/121(A)/122 IPC read with Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, Section 10/13/18/20 of the Unlawful Page No.# 3/8 Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
(iii) The appellant was arrested on 17/05/2019 from his residence at Golaghat and later on remanded to Police custody. Subsequently, investigation in connection with the Geetanagar PS case No. 210/2019 and Satgaon P.S. case No. 147/2019 was taken over by the NIA and those cases were re-registered and numbered as NIA case Nos. RC 04/2019/NIA/GUW and RC 05/2019/NIA/GUW respectively.
(iv) Upon completion of investigation, NIA had filed charge sheet against 8 (eight) accused persons including the present appellant. The bail application filed by the appellant was rejected by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam by impugned order dated 29/08/2020 holding that there was reasonable ground for holding that the appellant was prima facie involved in committing the offences.
4. Mr. Z. Kamar, learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that the FIR was lodged reporting the grenade blast incident that took place near the Central Mall at Guwahati and the investigation was also pertaining to the aforesaid incident only. However, there is no material laid before the Court to even remotely connect the appellant with the aforesaid incident. Rather, the appellant has been illegally detained in custody only due to his previous connections with the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA) even-though he had surrendered several years back. It is also the submission of Mr.Kamar that the appellant had formed an organization called "ANMMMTA" which is a Socio Cultural Organization for promoting the Assamese language and culture. Only because of his background as aforesaid and efforts to protect the cultural identity of Assam, the appellant, who is serving as the Vice-Principal of Lakhibari Jatiya Vidyalaya at Golaghat, had been arrested although, there is no incriminating material available against him.
5. By referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Jagir Singh and others reported in (1974) 3 SCC 277, Mr. Kamar has argued that a criminal trial is not Page No.# 4/8 a fairy tale wherein, one is free to give flight to ones imagination and fantasy. Referring to the materials on record, Mr. Kamar further submits that there was no basis for the learned Special Judge to arrive at a conclusion that the accusation brought against the appellant was prima facie true.
6. Responding to the above arguments, Mr. D.K. Das, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent (NIA) has taken us through the Case Diary as well as the Call Detail Report (CDR) and technical analysis report to contend that although the appellant had surrendered as a Member of the banned extremist outfit ULFA, yet, investigations reveals that he still maintains close links with the ULFA cadres and is also providing ideological support to the members of the banned extremist organization. Mr. Das further submits that the appellant is a member of "ANMMMTA", which is a front organization of ULFA and the goal of this organization is to seek independence of the North Eastern States. Contending that the analysis of CDR of the mobile phones used by the accused have confirmed that he was in constant touch with the co-accuseds, who are known members of the ULFA cadre, Mr. Das has also argued that the appellant had posted songs relating to ULFA (I) in the "Face Book" and he has also used the face book ID to communicate with the members of ULFA. Under such circumstances, the learned senior counsel for the NIA submits that the Special Judge has rightly rejected the bail prayer made by the appellant.
7. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties and have also carefully gone through the materials placed before us.
8. As noticed above, the incident involved in the NIA Special Case pertains to throwing granade upon the Police party on 15/05/2019. The appellant is one of the 8(eight) accused persons, against whom, charge sheet had been submitted by the NIA. After going through the materials on record, the learned Special Judge, NIA Court had found the following incriminating materials against the appellant:-
"23. Upon perusing the charge sheet dated 11/11/2019, I find that para 17.24 of the same Page No.# 5/8 enumerated the findings against accused Sri Amrit Bhallav Goswami (A-6).
i. That, the role and involvement of this accused emerged during the course of the investigation as one of the active over ground workers of the ULFA. ii. That the said accused is a surrendered cadre of ULFA and though he surrendered, he is still maintaining links with ULFA(I) and also involved in subversive activities and anti-national activities including terrorist acts.
iii. That, he is encouraging people to take up antinational activities through meetings and social media posts.
iv. That, he is also a member of ANMMMTA, which is a frontal organization of ULFA(I) and the aim of this organization is to create new country comprising all the states of N.E. India.
v. That, this accused is providing ideological support to ULFA (I) and propagating its ideology to other people and he is also actively involved in the conspiracy in pursuance of the goals of ULFA (I) along with the other co-accused.
vi. That, the accused posted a song relating to ULFA(I) in Facebook motivating people to fight against the Indian government. That, in this regard he is using Facebook ID www.facebook.com/amrit.goswamiasom and the Gmail ID to communicate with members of the ULFA CADRES.
vii. That, this accused is encouraging people to take up arms struggle against the Union of India and in this regard he is encouraging the youth to join ULFA(I). In this connection, he was also arrested in Golaghat with regard to Golaghat Police Station Case No. 700/2018.
viii. That, the aforesaid facts clearly establish that this accused is indulging in unlawful activities and is still associated with the ULFA (I) in its illegal activities, despite his surrender to the State authorities.
ix. That, the CDR analysis of the mobile phone number - 8638798352 - of this accused revealed that he was in telephonic contact with other members of ULFA (I) and that he was also in contact with the other co-accused of this case, namely, Prakash Rajkonwar, Pranmay Rajguru and Jahnabee Saikia.
x. The connectivity chart of the said mobile phone number of this accused has also Page No.# 6/8 been reproduced in the charge sheet and the same reveals that he exchanged 35 calls with Prakash Rajkonwar; 13 calls on another Number of Prakash Rajkonwar; 36 calls with Jahnabee Saikia and 17 calls with Pranmay Rajguru.
xi. Page 28 of the charge sheet reveals that during the relevant time, Sri Amrit Bhallav Goswami (A-6) exchanged 104 calls with co-accused Jahnabee Saikia. Similarly, Page 33 of the charge sheet indicates that this accused exchanged 153 calls with another co-accused Pranmay Rajguru."
9. That apart, upon analyzing the statements of the witnesses, the learned Special Judge had also observed that the appellant was previously arrested by the Police in an extortion case in the name of ULFA and that he had joined ULFA in the year 1998 and got training up to the year 2000. It was further noticed that the appellant was known to the family of co-accused Pranmay Rajguru, who is a member of the banned extremist out-fit. Based on such analysis, the learned Special Judge, NIA, has held as follows :-
"26. Upon analyzing the aforesaid materials in the case diary and the charge sheet, I am of the considered view that there appears reasonable grounds for believing prima facie that the accused Sri Amrit Bhallav Goswami (A-6), is actively involved in the activities of ULFA, including the faction - ULFA(I); that he has been repeatedly involved in the extortion activities of ULFA, for which he has been jailed several times; that, he has also involved himself in the recruitment of cadres of ULFA; that he is familiar with some of the co-accused of this case and has also attended meetings with them; that, he exchanged numerous telephone calls with some of the co-accused, indicating coordination in activities; that, he maintains links with cadres and leaders of ULFA (I), including relations with the self-styled Chief of ULFA(I) Paresh Baruah; that he propagates the ideology of ULFA through social media".
10. From examination of the materials available on record, we find that "ANMMMTA" is a Socio- Cultural Organization and the same is not a banned organization as per First Schedule contained in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter referred to as UAP Act, 1967). The basic Page No.# 7/8 accusation against the appellant is to the effect that "ANMMMTA" is a front organization of ULFA and that he is an ULFA (I) sympathizer, providing ideological support to the banned extremist organization.
11. From the technical analysis report and the CDR, we find that there is some material to suggest that the appellant was in touch with the ULFA cadres, who are the co-accused in this case. However, the date and time or the content of such communication is not available. What would, however, be significant to note herein is that the materials placed before us do not prima facie implicate the appellant in the incident that took place on 15/05/2019. Mr. Das has also not been able to point out at any material so as to link the appellant with the commission of the offences under sections 325/326/307/121 IPC read with Section 3/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Sections 10/13/16/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 by the appellant. Rather, it appears that the needle of suspicion has gone towards the appellant largely due to his antecedents, more particularly, his past association with the banned organization ULFA and its cadres.
12. We also find that there is no material to indicate that the appellant was involved in committing an offence which is punishable under Section 120B of the IPC.
13. The allegations are no doubt, serious. Whether the NIA succeeds in producing enough evidence leading to the conviction of the appellant is a matter that can be gone into only during trial. However, having regard to the materials placed before us at this stage, we are of the prima facie opinion that there is no good ground to presume that the accused was involved in the incident of lobbing hand grenade upon the Police party on 15/05/2019.
14. We also find that the appellant is a family man having his permanent residence at Golaghat and he is also serving in a School since past several years. Therefore, we do not see any possibility of the appellant fleeing the trial.
15. For the reasons stated herein above, we are of the view that the impugned order dated 29/08/2020 is unsustainable in the eye of law and the same is accordingly set aside.
Page No.# 8/8
16. The appellant is directed to be released on bail on furnishing bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) and two local sureties of like amount including one Government Servant having more than 5 (five) years of service left. We also direct that the appellant shall not indulge in any activity which is detrimental to maintenance of peace and security of the State and he shall not in any manner, either directly or indirectly, try to influence any of the witnesses. The appellant shall also not leave the jurisdiction of the Special Judge, NIA without prior written permission.
17. We make it clear that our observation made herein above is of tentative nature and are purely meant for the purpose of this bail application.
18. It is also made clear that violation of the conditions imposed by this Court may lead to cancellation of the bail granted to the appellant.
This appeal stands disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE JUDGE Sukhamay Comparing Assistant