Unlawful Activities Act : Prolonged detention is unjustified and violates the rights of accused - Bail granted

Supreme Court Grants Bail to Tonlong Konyak in Prolonged Detention Case Detention without chargesheet under UAPA deemed unjustified by Supreme Court; Bail granted due to lack of incriminating evidence

The Supreme Court of India has granted bail to Tonlong Konyak, who was detained for nearly two years without a chargesheet being filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The apex court found the prolonged detention to be in violation of Section 43D(2)(a) of the UAPA, which outlines the permissible duration of custody without chargesheet.

The case originated from an FIR registered at Sapekhati Police Station in Assam, based on allegations of extortion by the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA-Independent). Konyak was apprehended on July 23, 2023, with a significant amount of extortion money. Despite his arrest, the chargesheet was only filed on July 30, 2025, nearly two years later, leading to the Supreme Court's intervention.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, highlighted the absence of incriminating material or direct allegations against Konyak, deeming his continued detention unjustified. Earlier, the Special Judge at Charaideo had denied an extension for the investigation period, reinforcing the necessity for Konyak's release.

The Supreme Court ordered Konyak's release on bail, subject to terms set by the trial court, emphasizing the need for his cooperation in the ongoing trial. The court also provided a mechanism for the State or trial court to report any undue delays attributed to Konyak, ensuring accountability in the judicial process.

Bottom Line:

Prolonged detention without filing of chargesheet under UAPA is unjustified and violative of Section 43D(2)(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Bail can be granted in such circumstances.

Statutory provision(s): Section 43D(2)(a) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 384 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 10 and 13 of the UAPA, Section 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (187 Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023).

Tonlong Konyak v. State of Assam, (SC) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2818489