Fri Dec 05 14:11:02 UTC 2025: Okay, here’s a summary of the article followed by a rewritten version as a news article:
Summary:
The Supreme Court of India granted bail to a 55-year-old tribal man, Tonlong Konyak, who had been held in Assam Police custody for two years without a chargesheet being filed. The court strongly criticized the Assam Police for the prolonged detention, emphasizing that such custody was “wholly unjustified” and “illegal” under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The prosecution argued Konyak was a Myanmar national found with counterfeit currency and illegally crossing the border, citing Section 43D(7) of the UAPA to deny bail. The Court rejected this, stating that UAPA does not allow for illegal custody. The court noted Konyak had already received bail in two related cases and that UAPA’s investigation period can only be extended to 180 days with judicial order. The court also addressed concerns raised about Konyak’s nationality and his rights under the Indian Constitution, asserting that even foreign nationals are entitled to equal protection under the law.
News Article:
Indian Supreme Court Slams Assam Police, Grants Bail to Detained Tribal Man
New Delhi, December 5, 2025 – The Supreme Court of India today strongly rebuked the Assam Police for the unlawful detention of a 55-year-old tribal man, Tonlong Konyak, ordering his immediate release on bail. Konyak had been held for two years without a chargesheet filed against him, prompting the court to label his custody “wholly unjustified” and, in effect, illegal.
The case has raised serious questions about the application of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the rights of individuals, even those suspected of illegal entry into the country.
During the hearing, Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed their outrage at the Assam Police’s failure to adhere to legal timelines for filing charges. “For two years, you did not file the chargesheet, and the man has been in custody? This is, in fact, illegal custody,” Justice Mehta said to the Assam Government’s advocate, Shubhojit Roy.
The prosecution argued that Konyak, identified as a Myanmar national, was arrested near the Nagaland border in July 2023 allegedly carrying extorted money and possessing counterfeit Indian currency. They further claimed ties to the banned United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA-Independent). The prosecution cited section 43D(7) of UAPA as prohibiting bail.
Advocate Shahrukh Alam, representing Konyak, countered that he belongs to the Konyak tribe indigenous to the border region and that the area was under a Free Movement Regime (FMR) with Myanmar at the time of his arrest. Alam also highlighted that a chargesheet was only filed in July of this year.
The Supreme Court rejected the prosecution’s arguments, asserting that even stringent UAPA provisions do not override the principle of legal custody. The court also noted that the investigation period under UAPA can only be extended up to 180 days with a judicial order, which was not obtained in this case.
Furthermore, the court addressed concerns raised by the petitioner regarding his nationality and his rights under Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution, emphasizing that even if he is a foreign national, he is still entitled to equal protection under the law. The court noted that no incriminating evidence was found on the accused and no direct evidence linked him to extortion.
The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of due process and the protection of fundamental rights, even in cases involving national security concerns. This ruling will likely have implications for other cases involving prolonged detention under the UAPA.
First Piper 