Page No.# 1/4 GAHC010034362026 2026:GAU-AS:6798- DB THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A./73/2026 SAYEED AHMED S/O SAMSUL HOQUE, VILL. BHANDARA PT III, P.S. MANIKPUR, DIST. BONGAIGAON, ASSAM. VERSUS THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR REP BY THE PP, ASSAM 2:INSPECTOR DINANATH MILI S/O KANTA MILI C.I. JOGIGHOPA POLICE STATION BONGAIGAON ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN, MS J AKTAR Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM, BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA O R D E R (CAV) Date of hearing : 14/05/2026 Date of order : 18/05/2026 Page No.# 2/4 (Michael Zothankhuma, J) 1. Heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.R. Kaushik, learned APP, Assam, appearing for the State. 2. This appeal has been filed under section 21 of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 against the rejection of the appellant's bail petition by the Special Judge, Bongaigaon vide order dated 20/01/2026, passed in Special Case No. 111(J)/2023, on the ground that the appellant had hatched a conspiracy with a view to waging war against the Government of India. Further, 3 (three) bail petitions had earlier been rejected by this Court on 04/02/2025, 01/09/2025 and on 09/12/2025 and also 10(ten) witnesses had been examined and as the appellant was alleged to be a member of a jihadi outfit based in Bangladesh, the bail prayer for bail had been rejected. 3. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant has been alleged to harbor a person belonging to a jihadi outfit i.e. Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) based in Bangladesh, who had illegally entered the country and was actively operating in Barpeta and Bongaigaon districts of Assam. 4. The appellant's counsel submits that the appellant is a shopkeeper, aged about 28 years and has no bad antecedents in his life. He submits that the appellant was arrested on 22/042022 in connection with Jogighopa PS case no. 56/2022 under section 121/121(A)/120(B)/124(A) IPC read with section 17/18/18(B)/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He submits that the appellant is not named in the FIR as an accused and that as of date, 10 out of the 25 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined by the learned Trial Court. He submits that as the trial is not going to be completed in the near future and as the appellant has been in judicial custody for more than 4 years, the appellant should be released on bail. Page No.# 3/4 5. On the other hand, the learned APP submits that no new grounds have been forthcoming in the present application for grant of bail. He also submits that as 10 witnesses have already been examined, the rest of the witnesses would be examined by the learned Trial Court within a short period and as the case is of a serious nature, the application should be rejected. 6. We have heard the learned counsels for the Parties. 7. As has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellant, this court had rejected 3 bail applications of the appellant on the ground that the appellant had harboured a Bangladeshi national who is a member of ABT, having affiliation to Al- Qaeda. The activity of ABT was for training of indoctrinated youths and for waging a Jihad relating to terrorist activities in the districts of Bongaigaon and other parts of India. This court had also taken note of the fact that trial has started and at the time of disposal of Bail Application no. 3410/2025 on 09/12/2025, 9 witnesses had been examined. Though the present application states that 10 witnesses have been examined, we have been told that actually 12 witnesses have been examined. 8. In the case of Union of India v. K. Najeeb reported in (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Supreme Court held that the presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act, per se, does not oust the Constitutional Court to grant bail, on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution and that keeping in mind the length of period spent by an accused in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed soon, bail can be granted. Further, Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the NDPS Act. 9. In the case of Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another (Criminal Appeal No. 2787/2024), the Supreme Court held that if no speedy trial can be provided as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, then Page No.# 4/4 the State or any other prosecuting agency should not oppose the plea for bail on the ground that the crime committed is serious. It further held that, criminals are not born out but made. The human potential in everyone is good and one should never write off any criminal as beyond redemption. Indeed, every saint has a past and every sinner has a future. 10. In the present case, we are aware that the appellant has been made out to be a harbourer of a terrorist. However, as observed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) reported in 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 1, those persons who are involved in terrorist activity or unlawful activity stand on a different legal footing, from those whose alleged involvement is confined to felicitation or participation at a different level and that to disregard such distinctions, would result in arbitrariness. Though the allegation of harboring a person involved in terrorist activity would stand on a less serious footing than being involved in terrorist activity, we are of the view that as no new grounds have been set out by the appellant for grant or bail, the petition should be rejected at this stage. Further, 12 out of the 25 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined by the learned Trial Court. 11. In view of the fact that the case is a serious case involving the security of this country, we are not inclined to allow the petition at this stage. We however would like the learned Trial Court to speed up the trial, as far as possible. 12. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant