Early Times Report
Jammu, May 9: In a stern order under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Special Judge NIA Cases, Jammu, Prem Sagar, rejected the bail application of accused Shaheen Ahmed Lone, observing that in UAPA cases involving national security, the ordinary principle of “bail is rule and jail is exception” has no application.
The bail application was filed by Shaheen Ahmed Lone, son of Nazir Ahmed Lone, resident of village Kanispora, district Baramulla, through his wife Mst. Nasreena Akhter, in NIA case RC-01/2020/NIA/JMU registered under Sections 120-B IPC, 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of the UA(P) Act, Section 25(1)(a)(1AA) of the Arms Act and Section 6 of the Explosive Substances Act.
The applicant was represented by Advocate Mr. I H Bhat, while Special Public Prosecutor Mr. K S Pathania appeared for the National Investigation Agency.
As per the case record, the matter traces back to January 11, 2020, when a Hyundai i20 car bearing registration No. JK03H-1738 was intercepted at Al-Stop Naka on the Srinagar-Jammu Highway. The vehicle was allegedly carrying Hizb-ul-Mujahideen terrorists Syed Naveed Mushtaq and Rafi Ahmad Rather, along with accused Devender Singh and Irfan Shafi Mir. Search of the vehicle led to recovery of arms, ammunition and explosives, including one AK-47 rifle, three pistols and one hand grenade. The case was initially registered at Police Station Qazigund and later taken over by the NIA.
During further investigation, the NIA alleged that Shaheen Ahmed Lone was involved in smuggling and transporting arms, ammunition and explosives from across the LoC and supplying them to terrorists of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba with the assistance of co-accused persons and over ground workers. The agency alleged that the accused was in contact with Pakistan-based handlers and had played a role in keeping terrorist activities alive in Kashmir Valley.
The NIA further alleged that the accused had received funds amounting to Rs 20 lakh from Saddam Padar, the then District Commander of HM in Shopian, for procurement of arms, ammunition and explosives. It was also alleged that he had provided five AK-47 rifles, 10 pistols and 10 hand grenades to LeT terrorists active in Sopore through OGWs of Sopore and Baramulla, besides providing Rs 9 lakh to a LeT terrorist active in the Baramulla area.
Seeking bail, the applicant argued that he has been in custody since September 2020 and that the trial has been delayed. It was submitted that out of 164 witnesses, only a limited number had been examined and that no recovery had been made from his possession. The defence also argued that his continued detention would amount to indefinite incarceration.
Opposing the plea, SPP Mr. K S Pathania submitted that the accused was part of a well-knit conspiracy and that the material collected during investigation clearly demonstrated his active participation. The NIA argued that the applicant was facing serious allegations touching national security and that the bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA squarely applied.
The Court noted the NIA’s stand that there was strong oral and documentary evidence, including protected witnesses and forensic material, to establish the alleged incriminating role of the applicant. It was also pointed out that charges had already been framed against the accused and the order on charge had not been challenged, thereby attaining finality.
The Special Judge observed that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA places a specific embargo on grant of bail where the court finds reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations are prima facie true. Relying upon the Supreme Court judgment in Gurwinder Singh v/s State of Punjab, the Court held that the general bail principle does not apply in UAPA cases and that bail must be rejected as a rule if the accusations appear prima facie true.
The Court strongly observed that the UAPA provisions are stringent because they are framed to protect the security and sovereignty of the nation, which cannot be compromised. It further held that at the stage of bail, the court is not required to conduct a detailed examination of evidence or decide guilt beyond reasonable doubt, but only to see whether the prosecution has produced prima facie material in support of the charges.
Rejecting the argument of long incarceration, the Court observed that the trial is already underway and witnesses are being examined regularly. It held that the material on record indicates the applicant’s involvement in furtherance of a conspiracy connected with terrorist activities backed by members of banned terrorist organisations. The Court also noted that if the accused is released on bail, there is every likelihood that he may influence key witnesses, thereby hampering the process of justice.
Holding that long custody and individual liberty cannot override the statutory bar in serious terror-related offences, the Special Judge rejected the bail application at this stage. |
