The Gauhati High Court has granted bail to Indra Mohan Borah, booked under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) for his alleged involvement in the 2019 grenade blast near the Guwahati Central shopping mall that left 12 people injured.
A bench comprising Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Malasri Nandi granted bail to Borah, noting that the evidence against him did not establish his direct involvement in the grenade blast. However, the bench acknowledged the possibility that he might be a member of a terrorist organisation.
The court stated, “In the present case, assuming that the appellant is a member of the terrorist organisation, the appellant can be convicted for being a member of a terrorist organisation. However, keeping in view the facts of this case, the further requirement of the respondents would be to show that he was involved in the blasting of the grenade along with the (A-1) Pappu Koch.”
The court refused to rely on Section 161 statements made by witnesses linking Borah to the crime, emphasising the need for concrete evidence connecting him to the grenade blast. The prosecution’s case alleged that Pappu Koch Bokoliyal (A1), an alleged member of ULFA(I), threw the grenade on May 15, 2019, near the Guwahati Central shopping mall.
Initially arrested by the state police on May 17, 2019, under various sections of the IPC, Explosive Substance Act, and UAPA, Borah’s case drew heightened attention when the Ministry of Home Affairs transferred the investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) due to the severity of the offence.
The NIA, after completing its investigation, submitted a consolidated charge sheet against eight accused persons, including Borah. The charges included allegations that Borah provided logistic support to Pappu Koch, communicating with him 33 times before the blast.
The trial court framed charges against Borah in February 2022 under relevant sections of the UAPA, to which he pleaded ‘not guilty’ and opted for a trial. Seeking bail, Borah’s counsel argued that two co-accused had already been granted bail, and only 20 out of 177 prosecution witnesses had been examined, despite his prolonged judicial custody.
On the other hand, the Deputy Solicitor General representing the NIA argued that Borah had confessed during interrogation to providing shelter to Pappu Koch after the blast and admitted direct involvement in the grenade explosion. The prosecution further pointed to call detail records (CDR) indicating constant communication between Borah and A1.
Dear Reader,
Every day, our team at EastMojo travels through rain, rough roads, and remote hills to bring you stories that matter – stories from your town, your people, your Northeast.
We do this because we believe in truthful, independent journalism. No big corporate backing, no government pressure – just honest reporting by local journalists who live and breathe the same air you do.
But to keep doing this work, we need you. Your small contribution helps us pay our reporters fairly, reach places others ignore, and keep asking the tough questions.
If you believe the Northeast deserves its own fearless voice, stand with us.
Support independent journalism. Be a Member.
Thank you,
Karma Paljor
Editor-in-Chief, eastmojo.com
Considering the legal framework outlined in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts bail unless the Public Prosecutor is heard and the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true, the High Court reexamined the case. Despite the trial court’s initial finding of a prima facie case, the High Court, citing the KA Najeeb case, independently evaluated whether the accusations against Borah were indeed prima facie true.
The court emphasised that even if Borah were a member of a terrorist organisation, the prosecution needed to establish his direct involvement in the grenade blast. Concluding that the evidence did not substantiate his role in the explosion and considering his prolonged custody, the court granted bail to Borah, citing the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
ALSO READ | Kaziranga emerges as second-biggest home for migratory birds in India