Isabella Mariam

The Gauhati High Court Division Bench comprising Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund granted bail to a man incarcerated for nearly five years under charges framed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The court issued this decision citing prolonged detention without substantive progress in the trial.

The appellant, aged around 30, is a postgraduate student pursuing an M.Phil. in Botany at Gauhati University. He was arrested on 27 May 2019 in connection with Geetanagar Police Station Case No. 210/2019, later re-registered as NIA Case No. RC.04/2019/NIA/GUW. The case stemmed from a grenade blast incident on 15 May 2019 in Guwahati, allegedly perpetrated by members of ULFA (Independent).

Also Read: "Supreme Court Upholds Piramal's Resolution Plan for DHFL, Sets Aside NCLAT Order, Says 'NCLAT Ought Not to Have Tinkered with the Clause'"

Initially booked under Sections 325/326/307/121 IPC, Sections 3/5 of the Explosive Substance Act, and Sections 10/13/16/20 of the UAPA, the investigation was transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) by the Government of India. The appellant was subsequently named Accused No. 7 in Special NIA Case No. 02/2019 following a charge-sheet dated 11 November 2019.

Despite filing multiple bail applications, including Criminal Appeal No. 67/2020 and Misc. (NIA) Case No. 25/2023, the appellant’s pleas were consistently rejected. A Co-ordinate Bench of the High Court had earlier observed in its 27 December 2022 order that while the accusations appeared prima facie true, the appellant had already spent over 3.5 years in custody. It further noted, "if there is any further delay in concluding the trial without any substantive progress, we are of the view that he will have a legitimate claim to be released on bail because of prolonged incarceration."

The present appeal was filed under Section 21(1) and (4) of the NIA Act, 2008 after the Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati rejected the appellant's latest bail plea on 25 July 2023.

During arguments, Senior Counsel Mr. Ziaur Kamar, representing the appellant, stressed the lack of incriminating evidence. He contended that the NIA's claim that the appellant had provided logistical support and reconnaissance assistance to ULFA (I) cadres was unsubstantiated. He also argued that "though charge under Section 121A IPC has been framed, charge under Section 121 IPC has not been framed against him and in absence of charge under Section 121 IPC, charge under Section 121A IPC cannot be framed."

Furthermore, Mr. Kamar cited key Supreme Court judgements including Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713, Shoma Kanti Sen v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 6 SCC 591, and Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra (2024 SCC OnLine SC 1693) to support the argument that continued pre-trial detention in the absence of trial progress violates Article 21 of the Constitution.

Opposing the plea, Senior Counsel Mr. Dilip Das, representing the NIA, submitted that the appellant had assisted ULFA (I) operatives, including the alleged mastermind Papu Koch, in selecting targets and transporting them. He pointed to photographic and telephonic evidence, as well as social media and email communications allegedly linking the appellant to ULFA (I) activities. Mr. Das stated that "release at this stage may compromise the fairness of trial due to potential witness tampering."

However, the court observed that only 32 out of 177 prosecution witnesses had been examined as of 7 April 2025, and noted that the last examination occurred on 20 December 2024, with the next scheduled for 30 April 2025. "The appellant’s right to have a speedy trial has been infringed," the Division Bench stated, "and there is no substantive progress in the trial."

Citing the Supreme Court’s guidance in K. A. Najeeb, the Bench held that prolonged detention without trial progress can form a legitimate basis for bail. The judgment stated, "we are of the considered view that the appellant has a legitimate claim to be released on bail in said Special NIA Case because of prolonged incarceration."

It further recorded that the earlier rejection of bail on 27 December 2022 had granted the appellant liberty to approach the court again upon completion of four years in custody if no substantial trial progress occurred. The court observed, "such finding of the Co-ordinate Bench dated 27.12.2022 was not challenged by respondent NIA."

Notably, the Bench also remarked, "the appellant does not appear to be a hardcore under trial and his role is marginal in the bomb blast incident on 15.05.2019."

The court clarified that its findings were "only our prima facie views in deciding the present appeal only and it will not have any bearing" on the trial court’s final judgment.

Also Read: "Jurisdiction of Review Can Be Derived Only from Statute": Bombay High Court Dismisses Challenge Against Waqf Board CEO's Reversal, Directs Petitioners to Waqf Tribunal

The Court directed that the appellant, Sanjib Talukdar, be enlarged on bail in Special NIA Case No. 02/2019 pending before the Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati, subject to the following conditions:

The appellant shall execute a bail bond of ₹1,00,000 with two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati. He shall appear before the trial court on all dates of the case and cooperate with its proceedings. He shall surrender his passport, if not already done, within two weeks. He shall not threaten, intimidate, or influence prosecution witnesses, interfere with the trial, or commit similar or any other offence during the bail period. He shall not leave the court’s jurisdiction without prior permission. In the event of any violation of these conditions, liberty is granted to the NIA to file for cancellation of bail.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Appellant: Mr. Ziaur Kamar, Mr. M. Kalita, Mr. S. J. Choudhury, Mr. U. Choudhury, Mr. D. Nandi
For the Respondents: Mr. Dilip Das (Senior Standing Counsel, NIA), Mr. D. Bharadwaj, Ms. Bornali Bhuyan (Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam)

Case Title: Sanjib Talukdar v. National Investigation Agency and Anr. 

Neutral Citation: GAHC010189562023

Case Number: Crl.A./340/2023

Bench: Justice Manash Ranjan Pathak and Justice Susmita Phukan Khaund

[Read/Download order]