news details |
|
|
| NIA Court rejects bail in cross-border drone arms smuggling case | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Nov 6: The Special NIA Court Jammu has rejected the bail application of a Kathua resident accused of involvement in an alleged cross-border terror conspiracy involving the smuggling of arms, ammunition and explosives through drones from Pakistan, observing that the material on record prima facie indicated his involvement in unlawful activities and that his release could influence key prosecution witnesses.
Special Judge NIA Court Jammu, Prem Sagar, dismissed the bail application of Habib, son of Haji Sheru, a resident of Haria Chak village in Marheen tehsil of Kathua district, who has been in judicial custody since July 17, 2022.
The accused is facing trial in case RC-06/2022/NIA/JMU, registered under Sections 120-B, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 16, 18, 20, 23, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), relevant provisions of the Arms Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
According to the prosecution, the accused was allegedly associated with a well-organised network involved in receiving and transporting arms, ammunition, explosives and funds dropped by drones from across the International Border in the Samba-Kathua sector.
The NIA alleged that the conspiracy involved Pakistani handlers, terrorists and associates of the proscribed terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT).
As per the investigation, Habib, who worked as a driver and was also engaged in the dairy business, allegedly came into contact with co-accused Mian Sohail and Faisal Muneer in May-June 2020.
The prosecution alleged that Habib and another accused, Rashid, provided photographs and geographical coordinates of isolated locations near the International Border to facilitate the dropping of arms and explosives through drones originating from Pakistan.
According to the NIA, these locations were subsequently shared with an alleged Pakistan-based handler, identified as Albert alias Hamza alias Sajjad Gul, who arranged the dropping of consignments.
The investigation further alleged that Habib received approximately 14 to 15 consignments of arms, ammunition and explosives near Mawa village in Samba district and another 21 to 22 consignments near Haria Chak in Kathua district.
These consignments were allegedly transported and delivered to Faisal Muneer and Mian Sohail at different locations.
The prosecution also alleged that Habib received approximately Rs 7 to 8 lakh for his involvement in the activities between 2020 and May 2022.
The NIA further referred to the recovery of a hand grenade, two pistol magazines and 11 live rounds allegedly made at the instance of the accused from Mawa village in Samba on August 8, 2022.
Seeking bail, Advocate I. H. Bhat, appearing for the accused, argued that his client had remained incarcerated for more than four years and that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.
The defence contended that prolonged incarceration without an early prospect of conclusion of trial amounted to infringement of the accused's fundamental rights.
It was further argued that the prosecution witnesses examined so far had not supported the prosecution case and that the accused was willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the Court.
The defence also submitted that Habib had deep roots in society, was unlikely to abscond and would neither influence witnesses nor tamper with prosecution evidence if released on bail.
Opposing the application, Special Public Prosecutor K. S. Pathania, appearing for the NIA, submitted that the allegations concerned a serious trans-border terror conspiracy affecting national security and sovereignty.
He argued that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposed stringent restrictions on the grant of bail where reasonable grounds existed for believing that the accusations were prima facie true.
The prosecution further maintained that the evidence collected during the investigation, including electronic records and witness statements, supported the allegations against the accused.
It was also submitted that the trial was progressing and that charges had already been framed against the accused on September 11, 2025.
After considering the rival submissions and the legal principles governing bail in serious offences, the Court observed that the existence of a prima facie case, gravity of the allegations, severity of punishment and possibility of influencing witnesses were important considerations while deciding a bail application.
The Court noted that the material available on record indicated the applicant's alleged involvement in furtherance of a conspiracy involving unlawful activities, while several relevant witnesses were yet to be examined.
The Special Judge observed that releasing the accused at the present stage could create a likelihood of influencing key witnesses, thereby hampering the administration of justice.
The Court also declined to accept the argument of anticipated delay in the conclusion of trial as a sufficient ground for granting bail in the circumstances of the case.
Referring to the statutory restrictions governing bail under the UAPA and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the Court emphasised that bail in cases involving serious allegations cannot be considered as a matter of routine.
Consequently, the Special Judge rejected the bail application, holding that the circumstances did not justify the release of the accused at the present stage.
The Court, however, clarified that the observations made while deciding the bail application were confined to the bail proceedings and would have no bearing on the merits of the main criminal case. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
