New Delhi: A special court in Guwahati granted bail to an alleged operative of the banned United Liberation Front of Asom (ULFA), noting that the charges against him were grave but that he had been in jail for two years and there was “no immediate possibility of concluding trial”.
The court contended that further imprisonment would thus violate the man’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution and ordered his release on a bond of Rs 1 lakh and laying down strict conditions.
The accused, Biplab Baruah alias Dhontu, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in January 2024 on charges of conspiring with and assisting other operatives of ULFA in lobbing a grenade at a military station in Assam’s Jorhat in December 2023. A crater and splinters of a grenade were found at the site. He was booked under sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Explosive Substances Act.
A similar attack had also taken place outside Kopahtoli army camp in Tinsukia district in November 2023, and the NIA was handed over both cases by the Ministry of Home Affairs after it emerged that the ULFA could be possibly involved.
Dhontu was accused of having possession of the grenades used in these attacks, as well as facilitating their transport and delivery at the behest of the ULFA. Charges were framed in the case in January last year and trial is ongoing.
The court, in its order delivered last week, said it cannot conduct a roving inquiry into the evidence against the accused while considering the bail application, and that it must also consider the duration of trial when weighing the material against the accused. It noted that only five prosecution witnesses had been examined out of the 196 cited in the chargesheet.
“While giving opportunity to the prosecution to prove the case, at the same time, the court has to strike a balance between the right of the prosecution and the right of the accused guaranteed under Part III (fundamental rights) of the Constitution,” the special NIA judge observed.
“As contended by the learned senior PP (public prosecutor) appearing for the NIA, that there are sufficient material against the accused person and the charges levelled against him are grave and serious for which accused does not deserve to be released on bail, is a proposition which causes prejudice to the right of the accused under Article 21 of the Constitution of India to get bail when conclusion of trial is a distant possibility,” the judge said.
Also Read: Please save the judiciary from the judges as well, your lordships
Arguments in court
Representing the counterterrorism agency, public prosecutors Sathyanarayana and Dibyajyoti Bharadwaj argued that the court was prima facie satisfied regarding the complicity of the accused and that charges had been framed, thus releasing him on bail would adversely affect trial proceedings.
However, appearing for Dhontu, advocate Shantanu Borthakur argued that only five prosecution witnesses had been examined so far, out of the total 196 cited in the chargesheet, and that there was an almost equal number of documents seized by the agency during the probe which had to be examined during trial.
Accordingly, the advocate argued, the scale of the remaining examination would affect the accused’s right to a speedy trial and that he should be released on bail.
The court accepted that there was no immediate possibility of concluding the trial, hence, keeping the accused in further custody, after two years of incarceration, would offend the rights guaranteed under Article 21.
“Having considered the rival contentions of the learned lawyers appearing for both sides and on consideration of the materials on record, it transpires that charges have been framed against the accused on 08.01.2025 and till date, only 05 (five) prosecution witnesses have been examined out of 196 witnesses in the first and second charge-sheets and more than 195 documents have been seized and produced by the prosecuting agency,” the court stated.
“Therefore, substantial time would be required for recording evidence and proving the documents cited by the prosecution (and) there is no immediate possibility of concluding trial,” it said.
(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)
Also Read: Habeas Porcus — how our judiciary is murdering the principle of ‘bail, not jail’ routinely