Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010264682024 2025:GAU-AS:1194 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Bail Appln./3830/2024 SAYEED AHMED S/O SAMSUL HOQUE VILL- BHANDARA PT.III P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM REP BY THE PP, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR,MR A K DAS Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 04.02.2025 Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the accused and Mr. B. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State respondent. 2. This application under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 is preferred by accused, namely, Sayeed Ahmed, who has been languishing in jail hazot since 22.04.2022, in connection with Special (UAPA) Case No. 111(J)/2023, pending before the learned Special Judge, Bongaigaon, arising out of Joghighopa P.S. Case No. 56/2022, under Sections 121/121(A)/120(B)/124(A) of the IPC read Page No.# 2/4 with Sections 17/18/18(B)/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, for granting bail. 3. It is to be noted here that the aforementioned case has been registered on the basis of one FIR lodged by Inspector Dinanath Mill, on 08.04.2022. 4. The essence of allegation in the FIR dated 08.04.2022, against the present accused is that he had harboured one Bangladeshi National, who is a member of Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) having affiliation to Al-Qaeda, which is a declared terrorist organization and he is involved in motivating youth in Joghighopa area and hatch a criminal conspiracy with other members of ABT for facilitating training of indoctrinated youth and men for waging Jehad and related terrorist activities in the district of Bongaigaon and some of the youths of the district had already joined a module and started working advocating, abetting, inciting, assisting, harbouring, recruiting and collecting funds for organizing/committing unlawful terrorist activities in India in the name of Jehad. 5. Mr. Khan, learned counsel for the accused submits that the accused was arrested on 22.04.2022, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for more than two and half years. Mr. Khan further submits that after completion of the investigation, the IO has already submitted charge sheet before the learned trial court and altogether 25 witnesses have been cited in the charge sheet and out of the said 25 witnesses, only 5 witnesses have been examined till date and as such, there is no immediate prospect of conclusion of trial and that none of the witnesses examined so far have implicated the present accused with the alleged offence. Mr. Khan also submits that except the mobile handset, nothing has been recovered from his possession and that he is ready to face the trial and he will appear before the court on each and every date and Page No.# 3/4 therefore, it is contended to allow the petition. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Sarma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, taking this court through the scanned copy of the record, submits that the trial has already begun and out of 25 cited witnesses, 5 witnesses have already been examined. Mr. Sarma further submits that though the said examined witnesses have not implicated the present accused with the alleged offence, yet, the statement of the other witnesses, who are yet to be examined, in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have clearly implicated the accused with the offence charged and as such, without examination of those witnesses, it cannot be said that there is no material against the present accused. Mr. Sarma further submits that since the accused is charge sheeted under Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, there is a requirement for satisfying the court that he is not guilty of the offence, in view of the provision of Section 43(D)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and unless the said provision is satisfied with, by the accused, the bail cannot be granted to him and therefore, it is contended to dismiss the petition. 7. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the scanned copy of the record received from the learned trial court. 8. It is not in dispute that the accused was arrested on 22.04.2022, and since then he has been languishing in jail hazot for more than two and half years and after completion of the investigation, the IO has submitted charge sheet before the learned trial court and the learned trial court had framed charge against him under Section 121(A) of the IPC and Section 19 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. It is also not in dispute that out of 25 cited Page No.# 4/4 witnesses, 5 witnesses have already been examined and none of them have implicated him with the offence charged. 9. But, having gone through the statement of the other 20 witnesses, who are yet to be examined, recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., it is found that some materials are there to show the complicity of the present accused with the alleged offence and unless those witnesses are examined, it would be premature to arrive at a conclusion that there is no material against the present accused. 10. Thus, from the materials placed on record, satisfaction can be derived that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the accused is prima facie true as provided under Section 43(D)(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and further, it appears that the trial is still going on and enlarging the accused on bail at this stage will cause further delay in the trial. 11. In that view of the matter, this court is of the view that this is not a fit case where the privilege of bail can be extended to the accused. 12. Accordingly, this BA stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant