Early Times Report
JAMMU, Mar 6: In a significant order involving allegations of terror financing through cross-LoC trade, the Special Judge, NIA Cases, Jammu, Prem Sagar has rejected the bail application of accused Tanvir Ahmed Wani, holding that the case involves serious offences affecting national security and that releasing the accused at this stage could prejudice the trial.
According to the prosecution, the case was registered by the National Investigation Agency on information that large-scale transfer of funds from Pakistan to India was being carried out through the cross-LoC trade mechanism at Trade Facilitation Centres in Uri and Chakan-da-Bagh, in alleged violation of policy restrictions, and that the funds were being used for fomenting terrorism and separatist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
The NIA alleged that Tanvir Ahmed Wani handled four cross-LoC trade firms and, in conspiracy with Pakistan-based traders, imported goods in excess of permissible limits, including almond consignments through under-invoicing, thereby generating extraordinary profits allegedly meant for proscribed terrorist organisations. The prosecution further alleged that part of the proceeds was provided to outfits including Hizbul Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba in cash and through banking channels.
During the hearing, counsel for the accused argued that there was no direct evidence linking him with the alleged offences, that only a limited number of witnesses had been examined so far, and that the delay in trial entitled him to bail. The defence also asserted that the applicant had deep roots in society, would not abscond, and would abide by any conditions imposed by the court.
Opposing the plea, the NIA submitted that the applicant played a pivotal role in terror funding, had allegedly provided money and SIM cards to Hizbul Mujahideen operatives, and that incriminating material, including militant photographs, letter pads of banned organisations and a money demand note from a Lashkar commander, had been recovered from his house. The agency also pointed out that charges under Sections 17, 20, 21, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 120-B IPC had already been framed against him.
The court observed that under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail cannot be granted if, on a perusal of the case diary or police report, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. Relying on the statutory embargo and the material placed on record, the court held that many important witnesses were yet to be examined and that releasing the accused could lead to influencing witnesses and hampering the course of justice.
Rejecting the plea, the court held that the seriousness of the accusations, the nature of the offences related to national security, and the stage of the trial did not justify grant of bail. It also ruled that delay in trial could not, by itself, be treated as a ground for bail in such a case. Accordingly, the bail application of the accused was dismissed.
The applicant was represented by Mr. I.H. Bhat, Advocate, while the NIA was represented by Mr. S.K. Pathania, Special Public Prosecutor.
(JNF) |
