 Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 20: Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Doda, designated under the NIA Act, BA Munshi has rejected the bail application of accused Firdous Ahmed in a terror funding and arms recovery case, holding that a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), IPC and Arms Act is made out against him.
Court observed that at this stage there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accused is not guilty of the offences alleged. The court said the rigours of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA squarely apply, barring grant of bail where accusations appear prima facie true.
The accused, a resident of Bhikhriyan, Doda, is facing trial in FIR No. 44/2021 of Police Station Kishtwar for offences under Sections 121, 121-A and 122 IPC; Sections 13, 18, 18-B, 21, 23 and 39 of the UAPA; and Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act. According to the prosecution, the accused was allegedly in contact with a proscribed Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist operating from across the border, received a consignment of arms and ammunition from Jammu, and concealed the same at his residence for use in terror-related activities.
During the hearing, counsel for the accused, Mr. S.A. Hashmi, Advocate, argued that the prosecution story is false and based on vague allegations. He submitted that a key prosecution witness, the father of the alleged terrorist handler, has stated before the court that his son had died in 2002, thereby demolishing the prosecution version. The defence further contended that some prosecution witnesses have turned hostile, the recovered pistols were not in working condition as per the CFSL report, and that the accused has remained in custody for more than four-and-a-half years, entitling him to bail.
Opposing the bail plea, Mr. Rajeshwar Samotra, Additional Public Prosecutor, submitted that sufficient material is available on record to connect the accused with the offences. He argued that the recovery of arms and ammunition from the accused’s house stands proved, that the accused had confessed to receiving the consignment on the directions of a terrorist handler, and that the trial is still at a crucial stage with several witnesses yet to be examined. The prosecution also apprehended that release of the accused on bail could lead to intimidation of witnesses and adversely affect national security.
After considering the rival submissions and the evidence recorded so far, the court noted that out of 58 prosecution witnesses cited in the challan, only 19 have been examined and crucial evidence is still to come. The court held that detailed appreciation of evidence is not permissible at the bail stage and that the material on record does not justify release of the accused on bail. Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed, with the court clarifying that the observations made are confined to the bail proceedings and shall not influence the trial on merits. |
