Supreme Court Strikes Down Expulsion of Bihar MLC as Disproportionate, Orders Immediate Reinstatement Private Banks Not Subject to Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Allegation of Forgery is Not Enough: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute When a Case is Made Out for Bail, Courts Should Not Hesitate: Kerala High Court Allows Bail Despite Commercial Quantity of Drugs Seized Retailers Cannot Be Prosecuted for Manufacturer’s Fault" – Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Pesticide Dealers Mere Issuance of a Cheque Does Not Prove Legally Enforceable Debt": Delhi High Court Upholds Acquittal in Cheque Dishonor Case Courts Cannot Ignore Urgent Repairs When Public Safety is at Stake: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court's Order Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Bombay High Court Rejects Premature Dismissal of Partition Suit No Substantial Question of Law – High Court Cannot Re-Appreciate Evidence Under Section 100 CPC: Andhra Pradesh High Court Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Proof of Possession: Allahabad High Court Quashes Relief in Land Dispute Section 197 CrPC | Sanction for Prosecution is a Shield, Not a Sword: Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Case Against BIS Officer Landlord is the Best Judge of His Needs: Supreme Court Orders Eviction in Favor of Landowner Vijaya Bank TT Scam | Supreme Court Acquits Jeweller in ₹6.7 Crore Vijaya Bank Fraud Case, Orders Return of 205 Gold Bars Procurement Preference for Small Enterprises is a Legal Mandate, Not a Mere Policy: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of MSMEs Revisional Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked Against Interlocutory Orders of Commercial Courts: Orissa High Court Declares Section 8 Bar Absolute Victim’s Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality to Be Sole Basis of Conviction: Kerala High Court Reduces Sentence of Pastor Convicted for Repeated Rape of Minor Providing Set-Top Boxes to Subscribers Constitutes Sale”: Karnataka High Court Upholds VAT on Tata Play Limited Mere Registration of FIR Cannot Justify Denial of Passport Renewal: Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

Supreme Court grants relief to Akhil Gogoi, orders protection against arrest in UAPA case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India has granted protection against arrest to Akhil Gogoi, a sitting member of the Assam Legislative Assembly, who is named as accused No. 1 in a criminal case. The case is related to alleged offences punishable under Sections 120B, 124A, 153A and 153B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Sections 18 and 39 of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

Mr. Gogoi was arrested on December 17, 2019, and a chargesheet was filed on May 29, 2020. His bail application was rejected by the Special Court on August 7, 2020, and the challenge to the same before the High Court, as well as the Supreme Court, proved unsuccessful.

However, the Special Court (NIA) discharged Mr. Gogoi on July 1, 2021. As a result, he was released after being incarcerated for about 567 days. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) preferred an appeal before the Gauhati High Court, challenging the order of discharge. The High Court allowed the appeal, and the judgment of the Special Court was reversed.

Mr. Gogoi approached the Supreme Court through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging the High Court's judgment. However, before hearing his plea, the Supreme Court ordered notice for a limited purpose to consider granting him protection against arrest. The Court then heard arguments on the matter of protection against arrest, and finally granted him protection against arrest and detention in connection with the case.

The Court noted that Mr. Gogoi had suffered incarceration for about 567 days, and since his release on July 1, 2021, he had been a free man for more than 21 months. His freedom was secured not by an order of bail, but by an order of discharge passed by the Special Court. The Court also noted that the offences under the Indian Penal Code alleged against Mr. Gogoi were punishable only with imprisonment for a period of up to three years.

Supreme Court held that Mr. Gogoi was entitled to be protected against arrest and detention in connection with the case. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of, confirming the High Court's judgment in all respects, but directing the release of Mr. Gogoi on bail, pending trial, subject to such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the Special Court (NIA) Guwahati.

Counsel: Huzefa Ahmadi, learned senior counsel for the petitioner; Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents.

AKHIL GOGOI VS THE STATE (NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY) & ORS.   

Similar News