Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 7: In a significant legal ruling, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a 23-year-old accused in a UAPA case, holding that a disclosure statement of a co-accused, in the absence of any other incriminating material, cannot by itself justify continued incarceration.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal allowed the appeal filed by Burhan Ahmad Mattoo, son of Mohammad Azad Mattoo, resident of Gangipora Mirbazar, Tehsil and District Anantnag, and set aside the order dated February 20, 2025, passed by the Special Judge UAPA, Anantnag, whereby his bail plea had been rejected.
The appellant was facing trial in a charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. 102/2020 for offences under Section 307 IPC, Sections 7/25 Arms Act and Sections 13, 18-B, 20, 23, 33 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. He had been arrested on November 17, 2021, allegedly on the basis of a statement made by co-accused Hafiz Abdullah Malik.
Appearing for the appellant, Advocates Parvaiz Amin Wani and Rayees Ahmad Dar argued that Mattoo had been implicated only on the basis of the disclosure statement of the co-accused and that no incriminating material had been recovered from him. They further submitted that the appellant had remained in custody for nearly four-and-a-half years and that out of 30 prosecution witnesses, only 13 had been examined so far.
The Union Territory was represented by Senior AAG Mohsin Qadiri with Advocate Maha Majeed, who submitted that though there was no other evidence except the disclosure statement, the appellant had been charged under Section 39 of the UAPA and therefore the bar under Section 43-D(5) applied.
After examining the record, the High Court noted that the appellant was arrayed as accused in the charge-sheet titled UT of J&K Vs Hafiz Abdullah Malik and others only on the basis of the statement of other accused, wherein it was alleged that the appellant was working as an Over Ground Worker with Lashkar-e-Taiba. The Bench further recorded that there was no recovery of any incriminating material from the appellant.
Referring to the Supreme Court judgments, the court observed that while the UAPA imposes stringent conditions for grant of bail, the material on record must still show reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. In the present case, the Bench found that except the co-accused’s disclosure statement, no incriminating material had been brought to its notice.
The court also took note of the slow progress of the trial, observing that despite more than four years having passed, the prosecution had examined only 13 out of 30 witnesses. The Bench held that the appellant had successfully crossed the hurdle of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and that there was no material to suggest that his release would hamper the trial or that he would influence witnesses.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal and directed the release of the appellant on bail, subject to furnishing two solvent sureties of Rs 1 lakh each and a personal bond of the like amount. The court further directed him to appear before the trial court on every date of hearing, not to leave the territorial jurisdiction of J&K without permission, not to commit a similar offence, and not to contact prosecution witnesses in any manner.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
