Shashwati Chowdhury
Published on: August 7, 2022 at 19:06 IST
On Monday, the Gauhati High Court denied bail to a 24-year-old man who had been booked under the stringent UAP Act for allegedly making objectionable post that promoted the banned organization’s ideology (ULFA).
Justice Kalyan Rai Surana’s Bench perused the case diary and noted that the investigation so far implicates the petitioner of publishing offensive postings on his Facebook account that propogated the ideologies of the banned organisation.
Therefore, citing the proviso to Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea for bail after concluding that his actions fell within the meaning for Section 39 of the UAPA (Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organization).
Readers should note the proviso to Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA prohibits a Court from granting bail to an accused if the court determines after a final report submitted in accordance with Section 173 Cr.P.C. that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against such person are at least presumptively true.
Abhijit Gogoi, 24, was appearing in court bail plea after being booked under both the UA(P) Act and Sections 120(B)/121/121(A) of the IPC. He was charged with continuing to upload, according to the allegations.
The petitioner, a 24-year-old boy, did not understand the consequences of publishing something on social media, according to his counsel, and since he has already been in custody for 57 days, he may be released on bail in any stringent condition.
The Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea for bail because it held that there was insufficient evidence to support a prima facie finding that the charges against him were false after perusal the case diary.
In similar news, the Gauhati High Court last month released on bail Borshahsri Buragohain/Borshahari Buragohain, a college student who was charged with making a Facebook post allegedly supporting a prohibited terrorist organization.
She was granted bail by the Justice Ajit Borthakur bench, who noted that further detention may not be necessary in the interest of the ongoing investigation. She had been in judicial custody since May 18, 2022, or 64 days, and had been booked in accordance with Sections 10(a)(iv) and 13(1)(b) of the 1967 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.