news details |
|
|
| Narcotics, terror funding case: NIA Court denies bail to LeT handler | | |  Early Times Report
Jammu, Aug 9: Special Judge NIA Sandeep Gandotra has rejected the bail application of Abdul Rouf Badan alias Motu LeT handler, in a high-profile narcotics and terror funding case linked to cross-border operations involving the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) outfit.
Abdul Rouf Badan, who was arrested in August 2022 after remaining absconding for over two years, is facing multiple charges under the NDPS Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court observed that his alleged role includes acting as a courier for smuggling heroin and arms from across the Line of Control (LoC) and collecting funds used for terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
The court, while dismissing the application, cited the gravity of the offences, ongoing investigation, and the sensitive nature of the evidence—including mobile communications, financial transactions, and witness testimonies. It was noted that 30 material witnesses against the accused are yet to be examined, and granting bail at this stage could jeopardize the prosecution's case.
Special Public Prosecutor K.S. Pathania argued that Badan was a key link in a network involving Pakistan-based handlers and that he had received large sums of money in exchange for smuggling narcotics into India. The NIA highlighted his association with co-accused Abdul Momin Peer (A-1) and Saleem Andrabi (A-5), and claimed Badan purchased property using proceeds from drug trafficking.
The defense contended that the case against him was fabricated, with no direct evidence or recoveries made from his possession. However, the court held that in cases under the UAPA and NDPS Acts, the threshold for bail is higher and requires the court to be satisfied that accusations are “not prima facie true,” a standard not met in this instance.
The court emphasized that the delay in recording witness statements was largely due to the accused being on the run and directed the prosecution to expedite examination of all relevant witnesses. It also clarified that the decision does not affect the merits of the main case. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
