Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 2: The Special NIA Court, Jammu, has rejected the bail application of an accused allegedly associated with a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) terror module, holding that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial cannot, by themselves, justify bail where the accusations are prima facie supported by evidence and the statutory restrictions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act remain applicable.
Third Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Madan Lal, designated as Special Judge under Section 22 of the NIA Act, rejected the bail application of Farooq Ahmed Malik, a resident of Byoli, Doda, in FIR No. 42/2020 registered at Police Station Peer Mitha, Jammu.
The accused is facing trial under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the UAPA in connection with an alleged conspiracy involving the collection and transportation of arms-related material for a terror module.
According to the prosecution, the accused allegedly collected three magazines from an active militant in Doda and delivered them to another person through an intermediary on the instructions of a Pakistan-based handler.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused received Rs 20,000 in connection with the delivery and remained associated with individuals allegedly involved in terror-related activities.
Advocate M.A. Bhat, appearing for the applicant, submitted that his client had been in custody since August 9, 2020, and that the prolonged incarceration without conclusion of trial violated his right to personal liberty.
The defence contended that although the chargesheet cited 107 prosecution witnesses, only nine were directly connected with the accused. It was argued that continued custody would amount to punishment before conviction.
Opposing the application, the prosecution maintained that the allegations were serious and directly concerned national security. It further expressed apprehension that the accused might influence witnesses or evade the judicial process if released.
After examining the chargesheet and the statements of witnesses, the Court noted that five of the nine witnesses connected with the applicant had been examined and had supported the prosecution case, while four remained to be examined.
The Court referred to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts the grant of bail where reasonable grounds exist for believing that the accusations against an accused are prima facie true.
Relying upon Supreme Court judgments, including Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, the Special Judge observed that delay in the trial of serious offences could not automatically become a ground for bail.
The Court also distinguished the powers of constitutional courts to grant bail in appropriate cases involving violations of fundamental rights from the statutory jurisdiction exercised by Special Courts under the UAPA.
Considering the material on record, the nature of the allegations and the evidence yet to be recorded, the Court held that the application was premature and without merit at the present stage.
Accordingly, the bail application was dismissed through an order dated October 30, 2026, and the trial will continue before the designated court. (JNF) |
