Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 21: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal upheld the order of trial Court whereby Trial Court dismissed the application of one Reyaz Ahmed Lone alleged militant of banned terrorist outfit-Hizbul Mujahidin had constructed hideouts in Dardsun Forest Area to provide safe shelter and other logistical support to the active terrorists of said outfit, so that they are able to carry out terrorist activities in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kralpora and other parts of Valley. According to the police case that the Police Station, Kralpora on 22.12.2022 received a reliable information from intelligence agencies that three persons namely, Ab. Rouf Malik, Reyaz Ahmad Lone and Altaf Ahmad Payer belonging to the banned terrorist outfit-Hizbul Mujahidin had constructed hideouts in Dardsun Forest Area to provide safe shelter and other logistical support to the active terrorists of said outfit, so that they are able to carry out terrorist activities in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kralpora and other parts of Valley. Accordingly, FIR No. 98/2022 under Section 39 of ULA(P) Act was registered and a joint search operation was carried out with SOG Karalpora and 17 JAKRIF. During the search operation, the above-mentioned accused persons were arrested for questioning and during questioning, they disclosed that they had constructed two hideouts in Dardsun Forest Area and had acquired arms and ammunition with the aid and assistance of other two alleged accused persons, namely-Abdul Majid Beigh and Sahil Ahmad Bhat. They further disclosed that they had kept the said Arms/Ammunition in the hideouts of Dardsun Forest Area. Based on the disclosure statement by the three accused persons, two man-made hideouts were busted in Darsun Forest area and recovery of items concealed in a blue coloured plastic tank of capacity 100 L was made. DB after hearing both the sides observed that the allegations against the appellants are in respect of recovery of the huge cache of arms. The allegations are very serious in nature and out of 13 witnesses, 11 witnesses have already been examined. It is not a case that the witnesses have turned hostile and there is no evidence at all against the appellant. The grounds as urged in the memo of appeals and extracted as above by this Court, pertain to the merits of the case and in fact, the appellants want this court to appreciate the evidence critically, which can be done only after the conclusion of trial. It is settled law that while considering the issue of grant of bail, the evidence cannot be appreciated, as it would amount to prejudging the case. DB had examined the order passed by the learned trial court and we do not find any reason to show indulgence. Both appeals are found to be misconceived. The same are, accordingly, dismissed. |
