Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, May 12: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the bail appeal of Syed Irfan Ahmad of Nazneenpora, Keegam, Shopian, who is facing trial in a Hizb-ul-Mujahideen-linked case involving allegations of waging war against India, terror funding, arms and ammunition procurement and facilitating movement of militants.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the order of the Special Judge NIA Cases, Jammu, dated April 22, 2025, by which the appellant’s bail plea had been rejected. The appellant is facing trial along with 10 co-accused in a Hizb-ul-Mujahideen terror conspiracy case. He has been charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A and 122 IPC, besides Sections 17, 18, 19, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
As per the prosecution case, the accused persons were allegedly part of a larger conspiracy to wage war against India by procuring arms and ammunition, raising and transferring funds and extending support to the banned terror outfit Hizb-ul-Mujahideen. The prosecution alleged that Syed Irfan Ahmad acted as an intermediary between accused Naveed Mushtaq, Irfan Shafi Mir and Devender Singh, a police officer posted in the Anti-Hijacking Unit.
The court noted that prima facie material indicated that the appellant allegedly facilitated the safe movement of his real brother, stated to be a District Commander of HM, and other militants from Shopian to Jammu in February 2019 for ex-filtration to Pakistan with the help of HM leadership. The bench also referred to allegations of fund transfer, call detail records and the appellant’s alleged role as a go-between in the conspiracy.
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate Molvi Aijaz Ahmad argued that there was no direct or indirect incriminating evidence against his client and that several witnesses examined so far had not supported the prosecution case against him. It was also submitted that the appellant had a clean past record, was a Government servant and a PhD scholar.
The NIA opposed the appeal through Vishal Sharma, DSGI, assisted by Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC, Sumant Sudan, Advocate, Chandan Kumar Singh, PP NIA, and Ashwani Verma, PP NIA, relying upon the bar contained under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
The High Court observed that once formal charges had been framed on December 16, 2022 on the basis of material collected during investigation, the rigours of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA stood attracted. The bench held that at the bail stage, the court is not required to conduct a mini-trial or deeply evaluate the evidence.
The court further held that the appellant’s plea of delayed trial could not automatically lead to bail in a case involving grave terror allegations. Referring to Supreme Court precedents including Gurwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab, NIA Vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, and Union of India Vs Barakathullah, the Bench reiterated that in UAPA matters, the conventional principle of “bail is the rule, jail is the exception” does not apply with the same force.
The High Court also took note of the appellant’s conduct during the pendency of the appeal. The Bench recorded that while the High Court was seized of the matter, an application seeking similar relief on health grounds had also been moved before the trial court. The Court termed this conduct as “abuse of the process of the Court and forum shopping.”
The Bench said the appellant had been seeking discretionary relief by concealment or misstating of facts and, therefore, was disentitled to such relief. It also noted a medical report from District Prison, Karnal, stating that the procedure advised for the appellant was not a major surgical procedure and did not require an attendant.
====
Follow our WhatsApp channel
