EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Jan 17: 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Subash C Gupta rejected the bail application of one Masood Ahmed @ Mashood son of Late Ghulam Hussain Matoo of near Grid Station, Kishtwar alleged Over Ground Worker of banned outfit Hizbul Mujahdin.
Police report reveals that a Case FIR was registered vide Case FIR No. 229/2019 U/Ss 13,18,19,38,39 UA(P) Act against the applicant- Masood Ahmed Mattoo and other four persons named, therein, on the basis of the information received by the police station Kishtwar through their reliable source. It is alleged that the afore referred persons have developed underground network and are associated with the ban Organization Hizbul Mujahideen ( HM) . It is further the allegation against them that they are providing harbor, transportation & other logistic supports to the militants of the above referred organization. Report further contains a reference that they are managing meetings with the active militant namely Mohd Amin alias Jahangir Saroori for carrying out militant activities in the area. It is further the allegation of the police that they are providing information with regard to location of the security forces which lead to attack upon them. It is further alleged in the police report that on his disclosure, Nissar Ahmed s/O Ghulam Mustafa Sheikh R/O Bun Astan Kishtwar was taken into custody in Case FIR No.67/2019 registered with police station, Kishtwar for commission of offence under sections 302/307/392/109 of RPC, 7/27 Arms Act & 13,17,20,23 UA(P) Act. On questioning, in presence of the local Magistrate,he admitted his involvement in harboring the militants by taking them to different houses of the City of Kishtwar.
3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Special Judge) Subash Gupta after hearing APP Sanjay Kohli for the prosecution observed that accusation against the present applicant/accused is serious, heinous, grave viz-a-viz security, integrity and sovereignty of Union of India and of our Union Territory. However, in the case cited the allegations are confined to providing of meal to the terrorists, without knowing by the applicant/ accused that they were in fact, the terrorists. Accordingly, the citation referred is not being made applicable to the present matter. In view of the matter, there is sufficient incriminating material / evidence both, verbal as well as documentary collected by the Investigating officer in the matter, whereby for drawing an inference/opinion by this court that there are reasonable grounds existing for believing that the accusation against the applicant/accused is prima facie true. Having drawn such an inference, I am of the considered opinion that in view of existence of a specific bar under the relevant provisions of Proviso to Section 43-D (5) of UA (P) Act 1967, applicant /accused Masood Ahmed alias Mashood is not found entitled to bail. --JNF
|
