news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail of two in Narco-Terrorism case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 4: 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Madan Lal rejected the bail applications of Mohd Latief Dar and Shafi Bhat who were allegedly involved in Narco-Terrorism Case.
the instant FIR was registered on 27-05-2019 U/S 8/21/22/27-A/29/NDPS Act. on the written docket of in charge PP Hari Market according to which the In-charge PP Hari Market along with the Nafri during Naka checking at Vivekananda Chowk, Jammu had recovered the heroin weighting 260 Grams. and a cash more than rupees 12 lacs was recovered from the car in which the accused Arshad Elahi and Fayaz Ahmed Dar were traveling. However, during the course of investigation the offences 13/16/17/21 UAPA were added on 02-08-2019. Also during the course of further investigations, the accused Mohd Altaf was arrested on 21-06-2019, on whose disclosure, I.O. recovered 12 Kg 42 grams of heroin which was seized in the instant case. During the course of investigation the I.O has brought on record involvement of all the accused being established as said accused Altaf was getting the narcotic drugs from across the border and supplying the same to the accused Arshad Ahmed Allie, Fayaz Ahmed Dar and other accused persons involved in the case on the directions of Shahid who is the financial head of the HM in Pakistan and as such the offences U/S 8/21/22/27-A/29/NDPS Act, 13/16/17/21UAPA Act stand established against the accused in the investigation after completing the investigation I/o presented the charge sheet against all the accused including the above said accused Fayaz Ahmed Dar in which the charges have been framed against the accused such at this stage the application for grant of bail is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed out rightly. On 16-07-2023 accused Mohd. Latif Dar S/o Abdul Aziz Dar R/o Sonigam near Nai Basti tehsil and distt. Kulgam was also arrested under the NDPS Act. during their sustained questioning he admitted that he was in active contact with militant organization (HM) outfit which was active in Kashmir, who were using them for financing illicit trafficking of narcotic from across the border which was being used for raising funds for terrorist activities in the states. He further disclosed that he was delivering the money received from Arshad Ahmed Allie to HM militant Mohd. Shafi Bhat S/o Gulam Hassan Bhat R/o Nai Basti, Arwani Bijbhera on the instructions of Fayaz Ahmed Rather. On the basis of their disclosure memo has been prepared and pointed to all those places from where he collected the money from Arshad Ahmed Allie and further delivered to Mohd. Shafi Bhat. On disclosure of Mohd. Latif Dar, Mohd Shafi Bhat was arrested on 25-07-2019 who has corroborated the disclosure made by Mohd. Latif Dar with regard to the financing illicit trafficking of narcotics from across the border which was being used for raising funds for terrorist activities and used to circulate the money collected from Mohd Latif Dar alongwith the HM Militants was done there by establishing the factum of conspiracy between all these accused persons.
3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Madan Lal after hearing both the sides observed that from the perusal of the charge sheet, charges and witnesses recorded regarding the offences under Sections 13/17/21/39/40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation of above said offences against the applicants are prima facie true. Moreover, the case is at the stage of prosecution evidence and many PW are yet to be examined and PWs who have been examined have supported prosecution case. Keeping in view the above discussed facts and case-law, in the first case, it is held that delay in trial of serious offences cannot be ground for grant of bail; in the second judgment, bail granted to the accused in UA (P) Act offences by the Special Court and High Court has been cancelled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In third judgment, bail has been granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court but only in the exercise of powers of a constitutional Court, holding that statutory restrictions under Section 43 (D) of UA (P) Act is not binding on the constitutional Courts. Therefore, considering the facts, law and the case-law, the application of the applicants is pre-mature and without merits, at this stage, so cannot be allowed and bail cannot be granted. Same is rejected and bail is denied, Court ordered. —JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
