Akhil Gogoi Hearing in connection with two cases: NIA Court Posted another hearing for Feb 28

Digital Desk: Raijor Dal chief Akhil Gogoi appeared before the special NIA court in Guwahati on Thursday in connection with two cases brought against him during the December 2019 anti-CAA protests in Assam.

The NIA court has summoned him to appear today. The hearing on the cases against him has concluded, and the judgement has been reserved.

According to reports, another hearing in the case has been scheduled for February 28, after which the Supreme Court will hear Akhil Gogoi's bail petition on Friday.

The NIA will not take any further action in the case until after the Supreme Court hearing. 

Akhil Gogoi was summoned to the NIA court today after the Assam government asked the Gauhati High Court to investigate the cases brought against the Sivasagar MLA. Based on the appeal, the high court ordered that the matter be reopened by the NIA court.

It should be remembered that, while giving interim protection to Akhil Gogoi, the Supreme Court directed against future arrests in connection with the case until the issue is resolved.

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court granted Sivasagar Legislator Akhil Gogoi protection from arrest in connection with the anti-CAA protests case and suspected Maoist affiliations, and asked the NIA to respond to his petition. 

Akhil Gogoi had petitioned the Supreme Court in response to the Gauhati High Court's February 9 judgement allowing the special NIA court in Assam to proceed with charging him in one of the two cases.

"Let notice be given on the standing counsel for the State (NIA), for the limited purpose of considering the award of protection to the petitioner from arrest according to the impugned decision, returnable on February 24, 2023," a bench comprising of justices V Ramasubramanian and Pankaj Mithal stated. 

Meanwhile, the petitioner (Akhil Gogoi) is exempted from arrest in connection with FIR bearing... dated December 14, 2019, Police Station NIA, Guwahati. 

The high court had permitted the NIA to file charges in the special court against Akhil Gogoi and three of his associates, Dhajya Konwar, Manas Konwar, and Bitu Sonowal, in connection with anti-CAA protests and suspected Maoist connections. The order followed the NIA's appeal of a special NIA court's decision to release the four. 

Additionally, the other three suspects in the NIA case who had been granted bail were released from jail. The only one whose bail was denied by the court was Akhil Gogoi, who was released after 567 days in jail after special NIA judge Pranjal Das absolved him and the three others of all allegations.

All four, including Akhil Gogoi, were summoned to appear before the special NIA court today. The NIA is looking into two cases involving anti-CAA protests against Akhil Gogoi. In one of those cases, the special NIA court granted him bail, which was affirmed by the Gauhati High Court in April 2021. 

Moreover, Akhil Gogoi remained in judicial prison while the NIA investigated his bail petition in the second case involving violence at anti-CAA protests. The special NIA court discharged Akhil Gogoi and his three friends on July 1, 2021, for their alleged role in the violent anti-CAA protests in Assam in December 2019.

The court observed that Akhil Gogoi's 'talk of blockage' did not harm the country's economic security and was not 'a terrorist act'. The NIA court then filed an appeal with the Gauhati High Court, allowing the agency to charge Akhil Gogoi under multiple sections, including sedition and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). 

In a formal written order, the special NIA court stated that, in the interest of justice, it regarded the investigative authority's actions and approach in the case to be "discouraging" at best.

"The court has high expectations from a top investigating agency like the NIA, tasked with the critically essential mission of defending our country and us, citizens, from the threat of terrorism, the court hopes and anticipates that such high standards will be maintained for the sake of the country, and that this case will be an exception" the order stated.