Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 27: In a significant development, the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Jammu (Designated Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act), presided over by Judge Madan Lal, has rejected bail pleas of three accused persons in connection with the high-profile narco-terror funding case registered under FIR No. 73/2022 at Gandhi Nagar Police Station, later investigated by the State Investigating Agency (SIA), Jammu.
The court dismissed separate bail applications of Syed Ashiq Elahi, son of Syed Mohd Shafi Elahi of Surasyar, Chadoora, Budgam, as well as Mohd Rafiq Najar, son of Jamaldin of Nambla Uri, Baramulla, and Aijaz Ahmed, son of Mohideen of Khodi Surigam, Lolab Kupwara.
According to the prosecution, the accused were part of a wider conspiracy involving cross-LoC narcotics smuggling and terror funding networks, operating under the directions of Pakistan-based Hizbul Mujahideen handler Tariq Ahmad Malla alias Murtaza. Investigations revealed that crores of rupees, generated from narcotics and hawala channels, were routed through various operatives and bank accounts to fuel separatist and militant activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
Special Public Prosecutor Mr. Rohit Sharma, appearing for the SIA, argued strongly against bail, pointing to the gravity of offences and the applicants’ active role in handling and distributing terror funds. He submitted that granting bail at this stage could seriously prejudice the trial and pose threats to witnesses and national security.
The accused, through their counsels, had argued for bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration, lack of direct evidence, and parity with co-accused who had earlier been granted bail. However, the court ruled that the charges framed under Sections 13, 38, 39, and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act read with Section 120-B IPC, and Section 201 IPC, carry the rigour of Section 43-D(5) UAPA, which bars bail if the accusations are prima facie true. The court also noted that supplementary charge sheets invoked provisions of the NDPS Act, further strengthening the case against the accused.
Rejecting the pleas, Court observed that there exist “reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the applicants are prima facie true,” and any concession of bail would undermine the trial of a case that strikes at the sovereignty and integrity of the nation. (JNF) |
