The mere allegation of causing civil disturbance would not be a criminal offense under UAPA-Gauhati HC
While the Gauhati Supreme Court rejected a plea filed by the state against an order of the NIA Special Court, it ruled that the allegation was a “terrorist act” under the provisions of the Illegal Gatherings (Prevention) Act by 1967 was committed to threatening the sovereignty, integrity and security of India.
The bank had rejected an appeal against the order, which granted bail to an activist, Akhil Gogoi, who was arrested in a riot case.
In the case of, the bank relied on the judgment of the Apex court State by Superintendent of Police, CBI / SIT against Nalini & Ors. (1999).
The Bank clarified that acts without intent to cause terrorist acts and which result only in civil unrest are not the “illegal act” mentioned in Section 2 (1) (o) of the UAPA Act.
The bank stated that provocative speech could also be considered an illegal act under the law. However, to constitute a criminal offense within the meaning of the 1967 Act, this speech should be delivered with the intent to cause death or injury to persons or persons, or to cause loss or destruction of property.
The bank also stated that all of the above actions should be aimed at harming or disrupting the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the nation.
In the case at hand, activist Akhil Gogoi allegedly led a crowd of six thousand, which led to an economic blockade and stone throwing, seriously injuring the informant. The plea also alleged that the crowd tried to murder police officers on duty.
The NIA special court, which granted Akhil Gogoi bail, found that his speech was aggressive but did not cause violence. In addition, the court found that the seized materials should not, at first sight, be used in a terrorist act.
The High Court thus upheld the bail order and rejected the petitioner’s objection.