Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 4: In a significant order in the high-profile narco-terror case, the Designated Special Court under the NIA Act has rejected the bail plea of accused Altaf Ahmed Shah holding that the gravity of the allegations, the material collected and the stage of trial do not permit his release at this juncture.
The order was passed by Sandeep Gandotra, Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge NIA, Jammu, in a case registered as RC No. 03/2020/NIA/JMU, arising out of a major narcotics and terror-financing conspiracy allegedly spanning Jammu & Kashmir and cross-border handlers.
Shah, a resident of Dangerpora, Ganderbal, is facing trial for serious offences under Sections 120-B of the IPC; Sections 17, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; and Sections 8, 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has alleged that huge consignments of heroin were smuggled from across the border and that the proceeds were channelised to proscribed terrorist outfits including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM).
Appearing for the applicant, Advocates Tanisha and Umair A Andrabi argued that Shah is a law-abiding citizen who has been falsely implicated, is not named in the original FIR and that no recovery of contraband has been effected from him. They submitted that the strict bail bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA and Section 37 NDPS Act was not attracted in his case, and pressed for bail on the ground that he has remained in custody for over four years and the trial, involving a large number of witnesses, is unlikely to conclude in the near future.
Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor K S Pathania, appearing for the NIA, contended that the case represents a “deep-rooted narco-terror conspiracy” where narcotic consignments were systematically pushed into the Union Territory and the proceeds allegedly routed to terrorist organisations. It was submitted that Shah, while working at the showroom of co-accused Showkat Ahmad Parray, became addicted to heroin and then started supplying “chitta” (heroin) on Parray’s directions to co-accused Afaq Ahmad Wani and others. The agency further alleged that Shah procured a fake SIM card and handed it over to absconding accused Saleem Andrabi thereby facilitating the broader conspiracy.
The court noted that the NIA has collected substantial oral, documentary and digital evidence against Shah. Particular reliance was placed on the statements of protected witnesses, who, according to the prosecution, have given detailed accounts of multiple heroin transactions running into lakhs of rupees, allegedly involving Shah alongside other accused.
Crucially, the judge recorded that 14 prosecution witnesses relating specifically to Shah are yet to be examined, including witnesses to disclosure, recovery, seizure and arrest memos, as well as forensic and call detail records (CDR) witnesses. At this stage, the court observed, it would be premature to form any firm view on the prima facie truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations, a satisfaction which is mandated under the special bail provisions of UAPA and NDPS before any relaxation can be considered.
On the legal touchstone, the court held that the “embargo” contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies to the case, given the nature of the allegations and the materials produced. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
