Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Dec 19: In two separate but significant orders, the Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track Doda (Special Judge Designated under Section 22 of the NIA Act) B A Munshi has rejected bail pleas of accused persons facing serious terror-related charges, holding that there exist prima facie grounds to believe their involvement in offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Indian Penal Code and the Arms Act.
The court reiterated that in cases involving terrorism and national security, the conventional principle of “bail is the rule” does not apply, owing to the statutory bar contained in Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
In one case, the court dismissed the bail application of Firdous Ahmed, who is facing trial in FIR No. 44/2021 involving offences under Sections 121, 121-A, 122 IPC, 13, 18, 18-B, 21, 23, 39 UAPA and 7/25 Arms Act.
The court noted that the prosecution had placed sufficient material on record to show that the accused allegedly remained in contact with a categorized terrorist operating from across the border, received arms and ammunition, and kept them concealed at his residence.
While the defence argued that certain prosecution witnesses had not supported the case and that the accused had remained in custody for over four and a half years, the court held that bail proceedings are not a stage for detailed appreciation of evidence and statements of hostile witnesses cannot be conclusively weighed at this stage.
The court observed that only 19 out of 58 witnesses have been examined so far and crucial evidence, including forensic reports, is yet to be led. It ruled that releasing the accused at this stage could hamper the trial and prejudice national security interests.
The trial court explained that the expression prima facie true under UAPA requires the court to examine whether accusations are inherently improbable or wholly unbelievable. In the present case, the court found that the accusations could not be termed as such and therefore the statutory embargo on bail squarely applied.
In another order, the court dealing with the bail plea of Shahbaz Ahmed, accused in a terror-related case investigated by NIA, declined to grant bail after finding serious allegations supported by material collected during investigation.
The court observed that the accusations relate to aiding and abetting terrorist activities, and that the gravity of the offences, coupled with their impact on public order and sovereignty of the nation, made the accused ineligible for bail at this stage.
The court further held that the seriousness of UAPA offences outweighs claims of personal liberty, the possibility of influencing witnesses cannot be ruled out and grant of bail may undermine public confidence in the justice system.
In both the cases, the court underlined that terror-related crimes are not ordinary offences and showing leniency at a premature stage could have grave consequences for society at large.
In both the cases, Rajeshwar Samotra, Additional Public Prosecutor appeared for the UT of J&K.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
