Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 20: The Court of Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Doda, designated under the NIA Act, BA Munshi has rejected the bail application of Shahbaz Ahmed in a sensational grenade attack case, observing that a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, IPC and Explosive Substance Act is clearly made out against the accused.
The bail plea was dismissed by NIA Judge B.A. Munshi, who held that at this stage there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the serious offences alleged. The court ruled that the bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA applies, and the accused is not entitled to bail.
According to the police and prosecution story, the case arises out of FIR No. 26/2021 registered at Police Station Doda on the complaint of Satish Kumar of Bharath Bagla. The complainant alleged that on the night of February 11, 2021, unidentified miscreants lobbed a grenade through the chimney of his house, causing a blast in the store room and damaging household articles. Though no loss of life was reported, the incident triggered panic in the area and led to registration of a case under Sections 307, 427 and 201 IPC, besides provisions of the UAPA and Explosive Substance Act.
During investigation, police claimed that Shahbaz Ahmed, a resident of Udhyanpur, Doda, was found to be in contact with a Pakistan-based terrorist handler. As per the charge-sheet, the accused allegedly confessed that he carried out the grenade attack on the directions of his handler and was paid money for the act. Police further claimed that on the disclosure of the accused, another live grenade was recovered from a culvert area, which, according to investigators, was meant to be used in a future terror strike ahead of Independence Day. The grenade was seized and kept in the police malkhana due to its hazardous nature, while forensic and digital evidence was also collected.
Counsel for the accused, Mr. S.A. Hashmi, Advocate, appearing along with his associates, strongly contested the prosecution version and argued that the case is fabricated. He submitted that there was no evidence against the accused for several months after registration of the FIR, that the alleged recovery was doubtful and made from an open place, and that the so-called confession before police is inadmissible under law. The defence also pointed out alleged contradictions in the statements of police witnesses and stressed that the accused has been in custody for over four years, entitling him to bail.
Opposing the bail plea, Mr. Rajeshwar Samotra, Additional Public Prosecutor, argued that the prosecution has been able to establish prima facie involvement of the accused in a terror-related offence. He submitted that the grenade attack on a civilian house was a serious offence affecting public safety and national security, and that the recovery effected on the disclosure of the accused is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The APP further contended that several prosecution witnesses have supported the case and that crucial evidence is still to be recorded, making release of the accused at this stage unsafe.
After considering the rival submissions and material on record, the court noted that a substantial number of prosecution witnesses have already been examined and have linked the accused with the commission of the offence to some extent. The court held that detailed appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage and that the gravity of the allegations, coupled with the ongoing trial, does not warrant grant of bail. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations are limited to the bail proceedings and will not prejudice the case on merits during trial. (JNF) |
