Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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.   

Latest Legal News