DB upholds OGW’s bail granted by NIA Court

Excelsior Correspondent

SRINAGAR, May 27: High Court has upheld the bail granted to an Over Ground Worker (OGW) by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court, citing the prosecution has failed to persuade the court for rejection of the bail.
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar upheld the bail of Sameer Ahmad Koka. Koka was granted bail by the Special Judge (designated court under NIA) Srinagar, in case FIR 8/2022 u/s 13 ULA(P) Act of PS Chanpora.
The prosecution has challenged the bail order on the ground that the same has been passed in contravention of law because the court below has not appreciated the fact that there was sufficient evidence connecting Koka with the commission of offense.
It was contended by the prosecution that the court below while deciding the bail application was required to consider the merits of the case in the manner that Koka was working as OGW for terrorist organization TRF (banned organization) which has emerged to be a national security suspect as such the bail order sans reasons, thus, is required to be set-aside because the material before the trial court was sufficient enough to dissuade it from enlarging the respondent on bail.
“Looking from all angles, there is no merit in the appeal because counsel for the appellant has not been able to persuade us, on any tangible grounds, that the order impugned has caused any kind of prejudice to the prosecution or that it is perverse”, DB recorded.
The court said that Koka is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and if the offence alleged to have been committed by him is punishable with seven years, he was entitled to be bailed out.
“The order of bail has been passed after hearing the prosecution and no exception could be taken to the fact that merely because the respondent has been rounded up in an offence under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, bail is to be denied. In that background, the trial court has exercised discretion in accordance with law and we do not see any reasons to interfere with it”, read the judgment.