news details |
|
|
| DB rejects bail of LeT supporter | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Apr 3: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court (Srinagar Wing) Comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice MA Chowdhary upheld the rejection of bail of Javed Ahmed Bhat who is supporter of LeT.
According to the police case that the appellant Javaid Ahmed Bhat had accommodated the foreign terrorists initially in his hotel and then in his house and also arranged sim card for them, besides accommodated them in Padshahibagh and used to meet them in Bishambar Nagar area occasionally to discuss and plan their movement and other terrorist activities. The police concluded the investigation establishing that all the accused persons including the appellant conspired with each other to wage war against the Govt. of India by receiving, transporting, concealing, harboring and by extending all physical and communicational logistics to the freshly infiltrated Pakistani terrorists of proscribed terror organization "Lashker-e-Toiba" with the aim and motive to spread terror by way of carrying out terror attacks on the security forces and on the persons working in the security grid in J&K in particular and based on the investigation, the chargesheet was concluded against the appellant for the commission of offences punishable under sections 13, 18, 19 & 39 of UAP Act as he was alleged to have voluntarily provided accommodation to the two alleged slain militants in his hotel (Section 19 of UAP Act) and asked one of his employees (Saqib) to provide a SIM card to one of the two alleged slain militants for use (Section 18 of UAP Act).
BB further observed that the trial court while considering the application for grant of bail and so this appellate court while hearing the appeal against the rejection of bail cannot go into the intricate questions of whether the offences are made out or not as the evidence cannot be appreciated so minutely at the stage of consideration of bail, which is expected to be considered at the trial stage. It appears that the learned judge presiding over the NIA Court has discussed all the points raised by the appellant before the trial court and the point wise determination has been given with elaborate discussion on each and every point raised.
DB after hearing both the sides, perusal of chargesheet and other incriminating material, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order, which is, thus, upheld, as a result the appeal fails and is, accordingly dismissed.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
