news details |
|
|
| HC dismisses bail plea of accused in Jammu grenade attack case | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 21: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has dismissed the bail appeal of Shakir Ahmed Naikoo, accused of involvement in a foiled grenade attack plot in Jammu city, and upheld the order passed by the Designated Special Court under the NIA Act declining bail in the case. A Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem pronounced the judgment, holding that there exists prima facie material supporting the allegations of terror-related activities, and therefore no indulgence at the bail stage is warranted in law.
The appeal was filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the trial court's 28.04.2025 order, which denied bail in FIR No. 56/2022 of Police Station Bahu Fort, registered under Sections 18 & 23 of UAPA and 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
According to the prosecution, on 21 February 2022, Naikoo and co-accused Rayees Ahmed Koka were allegedly instructed by active Hizbul Mujahideen militant Basit Amin to lob a grenade at security forces in Jammu. On 22 February 2022, the duo allegedly travelled to Jammu in a Santro vehicle (JK01L-0200), where Naikoo was dropped at Narwal to execute the attack. Prompt action based on a specific input led to Naikoo's arrest from the area, and a grenade was recovered from his possession, thereby averting a major attack.
Before the High Court, the appellant primarily argued on the ground of parity with the co-accused, and also stated that he would cooperate in the trial and not threaten witnesses or abscond. The prosecution opposed the plea, pointing out that charges were framed on 23.01.2023 and that material witnesses examined so far have supported the prosecution case, including confirming recovery of the grenade from the accused.
The High Court observed that the alleged offences fall under Chapter IV of UAPA, and therefore the rigours of Section 43-D(5) of UAPA apply, which prohibits the grant of bail unless the court is satisfied that there are no reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true. The Bench also referred to the Supreme Court ruling in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab (2024) 5 SCC 403, which clarifies that the principle "bail is the rule, jail is the exception" does not apply to terrorism-related offences under UAPA.
Finding no plea or material demonstrating that the accusations were prima facie untrue, and noting the trial court's finding that witnesses had supported the prosecution version, the High Court declined to interfere with the earlier bail rejection order, ruling that "any indulgence at this stage is unwarranted." —(JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
