| Court refuses bail in LeT-linked case, cites prima facie truth | | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, May 11: The Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, designated under the NIA Act, has rejected the bail application of three accused in a UAPA case linked with alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba activities, holding that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against them are prima facie true. The bail plea was filed by Mudassar Saleem of Sildhar Mahore, Mohd Ashraf of Dakha Mahore and Javid Iqbal of Lancha Thuroo, all residents of District Reasi, in connection with FIR No. 115/2022 registered at Police Station Mahore under offences including Sections 121, 122, 123 and 124 IPC and Sections 13, 17, 18, 18-B, 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA.
The applicants sought bail mainly on the ground that they had remained in custody for more than three years and that the case was based on alleged contact with handlers operating from across the border through social media applications. It was argued that no specific terrorist act, operational recovery or overt act had been established against them.
The prosecution opposed the plea, submitting that the accused were allegedly working as associates of Mohd Qasim alias Salman with the intention to further the activities of the LeT outfit. It was alleged that an amount of Rs 1.80 lakh was received on instructions of the handler, part of which was distributed among the co-accused, while threat letters and Google Maps were recovered on their identification.
After hearing both sides, the Court observed that charges had already been framed against the applicants under Sections 13, 17 and 39 of the UAPA read with Section 120-B IPC. The Court further noted that out of 23 prosecution witnesses, 16 had already been examined, of whom 13 supported the prosecution case, while only three had turned hostile.
The Court held that in UAPA matters, no elaborate discussion or detailed appreciation of evidence is permissible at the stage of bail and only a preliminary enquiry is required. It further observed that the case falls under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA, attracting the rigour of Section 43-D(5).
Rejecting the plea of prolonged custody, the Court held that mere delay in trial in serious UAPA offences cannot by itself be treated as a ground for grant of bail by the Special Court. It referred to legal principles laid down in UAPA bail matters, including that constitutional courts may consider Article 21 grounds, but the Special Court remains bound by the statutory restriction under Section 43-D(5).
The Court concluded that from the charge-sheet, charges and witness statements recorded so far, it could not form an opinion that the accusations were prima facie untrue. On the contrary, it held that there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the applicants were prima facie true.
Holding the bail application to be premature and without merit at this stage, the Court rejected the plea and denied bail to all three accused. (JNF) |
|
