news details |
|
|
| NIA Court denies bail to alleged HM operative | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, July 25: A Special NIA Court in Jammu has rejected the regular bail application of Tafazul Hussain Parimoo, an accused in an alleged Hizbul Mujahideen-linked arms smuggling and terror conspiracy case, holding that prolonged incarceration alone cannot become a ground for release when the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Special Judge NIA Cases, Jammu, Prem Sagar, dismissed the plea after observing that the allegations concerned offences affecting the security and sovereignty of the country and attracted the stringent bail restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
Parimoo, who has remained in custody since October 2020, had sought bail on the ground that he had spent more than five years behind bars without completion of the trial. His counsel, Advocate Abdul Qayoom Mir, argued that no arms, ammunition or incriminating material had been recovered from the applicant and that the case against him was primarily based upon an alleged uncorroborated confessional statement.
The defence further submitted that nearly 150 prosecution witnesses had been cited, while only 23 had been examined, and none of them had allegedly attributed any overt act to Parimoo. It was contended that continued detention had assumed a punitive character and violated his right to personal liberty and a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Opposing the application, Special Public Prosecutor K.S. Pathania, assisted by Public Prosecutors Chandan Kumar Singh and Ashwani Verma, submitted that the accused was allegedly an active overground worker of the banned Hizbul Mujahideen and was involved in smuggling arms and ammunition from Pakistan through the Line of Control.
The NIA alleged that Parimoo had entered into a conspiracy with co-accused Shaheen Ahmad Lone for transporting weapons to Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists operating in south Kashmir. He was also accused of maintaining links with the banned organisation and receiving funds to support its activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
The court noted that charges had already been framed against the accused under Section 120-B of the IPC, Sections 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA and Section 25(1AA) of the Arms Act. The order recording the charges had not been challenged and had consequently attained finality.
Rejecting the argument based on prolonged detention, the court observed that the trial was proceeding regularly and witnesses were being examined. It said the material on record, at this stage, indicated the applicant's alleged involvement in a larger conspiracy backed by members of a banned terrorist organisation.
The court further observed that the ordinary principle of "bail is the rule and jail an exception" does not operate with the same force in UAPA cases, where the statute places a specific embargo on release once the accusations are found prima facie true.
It also recorded an apprehension that the accused, if released, could influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or obstruct the course of justice. Holding that national security and sovereignty could not be compromised, the court dismissed the bail application. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
