NAZIM UDDIN v. THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR K K KALITA, T M LAHKAR,MR. K UDDIN,MS. G DEKA Advocate for the Respondent : SC, NIA, Page No.# 2/4 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MARLI VANKUNG ORDER 20-03-2025 (S. K. Medhi, J) The present appeal has been preferred under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 against an order dated 07.10.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge, NIA, Assam, Guwahati in the Bail Appl being Misc. (NIA) Case No. 54/2024 arising out of Spl NIA Case No. 01/2022 under Sections 120(B)/370(3) and 370(5) of the IPC and Section 14 A(b) of Foreigner’s Act, Rule 6 of the Passport Rules 1950 read with Sections 3 (2)(a)/3 (3) of the Passport Act 1920. By the impugned order the prayer for bail of the appellants has been rejected.

We have heard Ms. G. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Shri D. Bharadwaj, learned PP, NIA.

Ms. Deka, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants were taken into custody on 15.09.2022 and since then they are behind the bars. She has also submitted that originally the charge-sheet was filed against 6 persons on

04.06.2022 followed by a Supplementary Charge-sheet against 1 accused person which was done on 16.09.2022. Thereafter a second Supplementary Charge-sheet was filed on 13.12.2022 implicating the two appellants. It is submitted that other than the two appellants, the other accused persons have been enlarged on bail. It is submitted that since the charges are common in nature, rejection of bail of the appellants by the learned Special Court is arbitrary.

She has also submitted that out of 111 nos. of prosecution witnesses cited, only 12 nos. of PWs have been examined and there is likelihood of prolongation of the trial. Page No.# 3/4 The learned counsel accordingly submits that the instant appeal be allowed and bail be granted to the appellants.

Per contra, Shri Bharadwaj, the learned PP has submitted that the projection made by the appellants are not wholly correct. He has clarified that though the other accused persons have been granted bail, they are all Indian nationals whereas the two appellants are Bangladeshi nationals and this fact is not in dispute. He has further submitted that during the investigation, a Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted and two Charge-sheeted Witness being Nos. 106 and 107 have identified the two appellants. He has further informed that on 14.06.2024 Charge-sheeted Witness No. 107 was examined as PW 1 and she has identified the two appellants in the dock. He has also informed that the Charge-sheeted witness no. 106 has also been examined in the mean time, as PW 2.

On the nature of allegations, it has been submitted on behalf of the NIA that the charges and allegations are grave in nature which involves human trafficking and PWs 1 & 2 are two of the victims of such human trafficking.

The rival submissions have been duly considered and the scanned copies of the TCR have also been perused.

It is not in dispute that the two appellants are Bangladeshi nationals and the same has also been admitted in the Memo of Appeal itself. Though the learned counsel for the appellants has placed much emphasis on the ground that the other accused persons have been granted bail, we are of the considered view that there is a distinct difference on the status of the other accused persons vis-à-vis the two appellants. While the other accused persons are Indian nationals, the two appellants are Bangladeshi nationals. We have also considered that PW 1, namely, Zubeda Begum, in her examination on 14.06.2023 has identified the appellants in the Court and such identification was also done at the stage of the investigation in the TIP Page No.# 4/4 conducted.

Be that as it may, we are of the view that at this stage, the consideration is only on the prima facie aspect and making any further comments may cause prejudice to either of the parties.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and the discussions made above, we are of the view that no case for grant of relief has been made out.

The appeal accordingly stands dismissed.

At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellants has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 19 of the NIA Act, 2008 which lays down that the trial by the Special Court is to have precedence. We accordingly request to the learned Special Judge conducting the trial to take into consideration the aforesaid provision of law and conduct the trial expeditiously. JUDGE JUDGE Comparing Assistant