Gauhati High Court
Crl.A./163/2021 on 27 July, 2022
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010085812021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./163/2021
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA),
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,
GUWAHATI, ASSAM,
REP. BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
NIA, BRANCH OFFICE GUWAHATI, ASSAM.
......Appellant.
-Versus-
RUTH CHUWANG,
WIFE OF SS. COL RAILYUNG NSARANGBE,
RESIDENT OF BENREU VILLAGE PEREN, NAGALAND,
PRESENT ADDRESS TOULAZOUMA NEAR GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL,
DIPHUPUR, DIMAPUR, NAGALAND.
......Respondent.
Advocate for the Appellant : Mr. D.K. Das, Sr. Adv.
: Ms. K. Talukdar, Adv.
: Ms. P. Dorjee, Adv.
For the Respondent : Mr. P. Kataki.
Page No.# 2/4
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KOTISWAR SINGH
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 27.07.2022.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)
[N. Kotiswar Singh, J.]
Heard Mr. D.K. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. K. Talukdar, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant-National Investigation Agency (NIA). Also heard Mr. P.
Kataki, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. In this appeal, the appellant has challenged the order dated 09.02.2021 passed by the
learned Special Judge, NIA, Dimapur, Nagaland in I.A.(Crl.) No.27/2021 arising out of
R.C.02/2020/NIA-GUW by which the respondent was granted bail for undergoing medical
treatment.
3. Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that while medical ground
cannot be the sole ground for grant of bail specially in matters relating to offences under
Sections 17 and 18 of UA(P) Act, 1967. It has been submitted that the respondent has been
charged for committing offence under Sections 120 B of the IPC, Sections 17, 18 & 21 of the
UA(P) Act, 1967 and Section 25(1A) read with Section 35 of Arms Act, 1959.
4. Learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that as regards consideration for bail
of any person charged under provisions of UA(P) Act, 1967 covered by Chapters IV and VI, it
Page No.# 3/4
has been provided under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act that notwithstanding anything
contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, no person accused of offence punishable under
Chapters IV and VI of the UAP Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on his own bond
unless Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity of being heard on the application for
such release provided that such accused shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if
the Court, on perusal of the case diary or the report made under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C. is
of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against is
prima facie true.
It has been submitted by learned Senior counsel for the appellant that it is incumbent
upon the Trial Court to examine whether the charge against the accused is prima facie true or
not. It has been accordingly submitted that bail can be granted only if it is found that the
charge against the accused is not prima facie true and as such, bail cannot be granted purely
on medical ground.
5. Learned Senior counsel for the appellant submits that in the present case, the Trial
Court made an error by enlarging the respondent on bail only on the medical ground without
considering the aforesaid aspect as to whether charges against the respondent is prima facie
true or not.
6. We have also perused the impugned order dated 09.02.2021.
7. Since the respondent has been charged for offences under Sections 17, 18 and 21 of
the UA(P) Act, 1967 which come under Chapters IV and VI of the Act, it was incumbent upon
the Trial Court to examine as to whether reasonable grounds are there for believing that the
accusation against the accused is prima facie true or not and if true, as mandated under
Page No.# 4/4
Section 43D(5) of the Act, bail cannot be granted. Bail can be granted only when there are
reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against the accused is prima facie not true.
However, there is no such discussion by the Trial Court as regards this crucial aspect which is
statutorily required to be considered by the Trial Court.
8. Under the circumstances, we have no alternative but to allow this appeal by setting
aside the impugned order dated 09.02.2021 passed by learned Special Judge, NIA, Dimapur,
Nagaland in I.A. (Crl) 27/2021 arising out of R.C. 02/2020/NIA-GUW.
9. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the Trial Court for reconsideration of the bail of
the respondent for examining as to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the
accusation against the respondent is prima facie true or not as expeditiously as possible and
pass a fresh order in accordance with law.
10. Since the respondent has been on bail vide impugned order dated 09.02.2021 till now,
till such reconsideration by the Trial Court and passing of fresh order of bail sought by the
respondent, the respondent will continue to remain on bail on similar terms and conditions as
directed by impugned order dated 09.02.2021 which will be subject to the fresh order that
may be passed.
11. Respondent may also file additional documents before the Trial Court, if so desire.
12. With the above observations and directions, the present appeal stands disposed of.
JUDGE JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
