Supreme Court slams Assam police, grants bail to man detained without chargesheet
Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to a 43-year-old tribal man, criticising the Assam Police for keeping him in custody for two years without filing a chargesheet.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta described the prolonged detention as “wholly unjustified”.
It noted that the Assam Police failed to file the chargesheet within the period prescribed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
“For two years, you did not file the chargesheet, and the man has been in custody? This is, in fact, illegal custody. You consider yourself to be the premier investigating agency of the country?” the Bench asked Advocate Shuvodeep Roy, representing the Assam Government.
Roy stated that the accused, Tonlong Konyak, was a Myanmar national caught with counterfeit Indian currency while crossing the border.
He argued that Section 43D(7) of the UAPA bars granting bail to non-Indian citizens who enter the country illegally, except in exceptional cases.
Rejecting this argument, Justice Mehta said, “Whatever be the stringent provisions under UAPA, the law does not provide for illegal custody. This is appalling.”
The Bench pointed out that the petitioner had already received default bail in two related cases where charge sheets were not filed on time.
It added that under Section 43D(2)(a) of the UAPA, investigation can only be extended up to 180 days through a judicial order that records the reasons for such extension.
Indefinite custody
Justice Mehta questioned the State counsel on why the chargesheet had not been filed, noting that statutory bail is usually granted if an investigation is not completed within the required period.
Roy replied that delays occurred because several co-accused were absconding.
“You cannot keep a person in custody for an indefinite period. If the chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated period under the law, he has to be granted default bail,” Justice Mehta said.
The Supreme Court was hearing Konyak’s petition challenging a December 20, 2024, Gauhati High Court ruling that denied him bail because he was not an Indian citizen and had entered the country without authorisation.
According to the prosecution, Konyak was arrested on July 23, 2023, on the Nagaland border by the Assam Rifles for allegedly carrying Rs 3,25,000 in extorted money while travelling toward Myanmar.
He was later charged under IPC provisions and the UAPA for alleged links with the banned United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA-Independent).
Advocate Shahrukh Alam disputed these claims, stating that Konyak is part of the Konyak tribe of Nagaland, indigenous to the border region, and that the area was under the Free Movement Regime (FMR) between India and Myanmar, which allowed tribal members to travel up to 16 km into each other’s territory without passports or visas.
“My Lords, please note that the petitioner has been in custody since 2023, and a chargesheet was filed only on July 31 this year,” Alam said.
The Bench observed that Konyak deserved bail, particularly since the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. “Evidently, the petitioner has been detained for almost two years without the chargesheet being filed. In our opinion, the custody of the petitioner for such a prolonged period without the chargesheet being filed was absolutely unjustified,” it held.
It also noted that a preliminary review of the chargesheet showed no incriminating material recovered from Konyak and no direct evidence linking him to extortion.
The petitioner argued that the allegations lacked evidence, making his detention arbitrary and violating his fundamental rights.
“The Hon’ble High Court erred in not because even if the Petitioner were a foreign national, he is still entitled to equal protection of laws under Article 14 and the fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the petition filed through advocate Akriti Chaubey stated.
It added that several Supreme Court judgments have consistently held that bail cannot be denied based on nationality and that personal liberty cannot be restricted without just and reasonable cause.