news details |
|
|
| Court rejects bail of JeM terrorist | | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 17: 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu Madan Lal rejected the bail application of Ubaid-Ul-Islam an alleged JeM terrorist.
According to the police case that on 12th September 2019, when applicant/accused along with other accused persons reached at police naka Lakhanpur, the vehicle in which he was travelling was stopped for frisking. During the checking of the vehicle, a black colored bag was found/recovered from the tool box beneath the driving seat of the truck, which contained 04 Nos of AK-56 rifles, 02 Nos of AK-47 rifles, 06 Nos. of loaded magazines and 180 rounds loaded in the said magazines. The aforesaid arms and ammunitions, which were picked up by applicant and other co-accused under the directions of the categorized terrorist Ashiq Ahmed Nengroo, were meant for delivering the same to JeM Terrorist who were active in Kashmir Valley to wage war against the government of India and the State of Jammu & Kashmir. The chargesheet presented in the case elaborately reveal that applicant/accused was part of the conspiracy with Ashiq Ahmed Nengroo, the JeM Terrorist for waging war against the democratic set up of India as a whole and J&K State in particular. These arms & ammunitions were also meant for disturbing the peace and tranquility of the State of J&K. The applicants/accused is hardcore radicalized criminal who was involved in criminal case involving the security of the state. The applicant/accused have been apprehended by the law enforcement agencies after strenuous efforts. The offences with which the accused are charged are very heinous relating to the security of the state and their release is detrimental to the national security.
Court after hearing both the sides observed that 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 and in third judgment, bail has been granted 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.The trial of the case is at mid stage, more than half of the witnesses are yet to be examined and charges have been framed on 21.02.2022. Therefore, considering the facts, evidence recorded and yet to be recorded, relevant provisions of law and case-law, the applicant has failed to substantiate the grounds taken in the application for grant of bail both factually and legally so the application of the applicant is pre¬mature and without merits. The applicant has failed to make out a case for grant of bail, at this stage, so the application cannot be allowed and bail cannot be granted. Application is rejected and bail is denied. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
