Baksa Court Grants Bail to Former NDFB Militants; Revisits Shadows of 2014 Khagrabari Massacre
On May 1 and 2, 2014, militants from the NDFB(S), a breakaway insurgent group seeking an independent Bodoland launched coordinated attacks on three Muslim-majority villages, namely, Narsingbari, Nonke-Khagrabari, and Narayanguri, all located in Baksa district within the Bodoland Territorial Area Districts (BTAD);
A Sessions Court in Assam’s Baksa district has granted bail to ten former cadres of the now-disbanded National Democratic Front of Bodoland (Songbijit faction), nearly a decade after their arrest for alleged involvement in the 2014 massacre of Muslim villagers in Khagrabari and Narsingbari. The court found that their arrest was marred by serious procedural violations, and that the prolonged delay in trial justified their release on bail.
Sessions Judge S. Bhuyan held that the accused had not been informed of the grounds for their arrest at the time of detention, a violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Citing the accused’s ten-year-long pre-trial detention and the absence of direct evidence, the court allowed their release.
What Happened in 2014: The Khagrabari Massacre
On May 1 and 2, 2014, militants from the NDFB(S), a breakaway insurgent group seeking an independent Bodoland launched coordinated attacks on three Muslim-majority villages: Narsingbari, Nonke-Khagrabari, and Narayanguri, all located in Baksa district within the Bodoland Territorial Area Districts (BTAD).
At least 39 people were killed, including women, children, and elderly villagers. Eyewitnesses reported that assailants arrived in military fatigues and forest department uniforms, armed with AK-series rifles. Many homes were set ablaze, and villagers were shot at close range or while attempting to flee. Several bodies were later recovered from the Beki River.
Why the Attack Happened: Ethnic Tensions, Demographics, and Electoral Backdrop
Multiple reports indicate that the massacre was driven by a volatile mix of ethnic mistrust, demographic anxieties, and political retaliation.
Ethnic Cleansing Tactics: The NDFB(S) considered Bengali-speaking Muslims and Adivasi populations as outsiders in what they viewed as core Bodo territory. The group had a long history of targeting non-Bodo communities during periods of heightened tension.
Retaliation Over Voting Patterns: The massacre occurred shortly after the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, and was allegedly an act of vengeance against persons who did not vote for Bodo candidates, especially in areas where Bodo militant-backed leaders had contested.
Attempt to Spark Communal Strife: Authorities feared that the attacks were intended to trigger widespread communal riots, destabilize the BTAD, and draw national attention to the Bodo insurgency's cause.
Though the NDFB(S) officially denied responsibility, the scale, pattern and targets of the attack matched the group’s known tactics. Subsequent investigations by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) led to chargesheets against 26 accused, including the ten men who have now been granted bail.
The Legal Proceedings and Current Status
The NIA filed chargesheets in July 2015, naming the accused for their alleged roles in the massacre. However, over the past ten years, only 79 of 143 listed prosecution witnesses have been examined, and none have provided direct evidence implicating the accused.
Counsel for the accused, Advocate Kankan Kalita, argued that the prolonged trial, coupled with the constitutional violation during arrest, entitled the accused to bail. The court agreed, noting that their rights had been compromised and the case lacked sufficient progress.
The prosecution acknowledged that the investigation was complete and noted that the NDFB(S) formally disbanded in 2020 after signing a peace accord with the Government of India and the Assam government. Many similar cases have since been withdrawn under that agreement, although the charges in this case remain pending.
Significance
This ruling places a spotlight on the tension between the imperatives of justice and the rights of the accused, particularly in cases involving mass violence.
While the court’s reasoning is rooted in constitutional due process, the decision may stir unease among survivors and communities still awaiting closure. The massacre remains one of the darkest episodes in Assam’s recent history, a grim reminder of how fragile ethnic coexistence can become in politically charged environments.