news details |
|
|
| NIA Court rejects bail plea of narco-terror accused | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 4: In a significant order in the high-profile narco-terror case being tried in Jammu, the Designated Special Court under the NIA Act has rejected the bail plea of accused Altaf Ahmed Shah (A-10), holding that the gravity of the allegations, the material collected and the stage of trial do not permit his release at this juncture.
The order was passed by Sandeep Gandotra, Additional Sessions Judge / Special Judge NIA, Jammu, in a case registered as RC No. 03/2020/NIA/JMU, arising out of a major narcotics and terror-financing conspiracy allegedly spanning Jammu & Kashmir and cross-border handlers.
Shah, a resident of Dangerpora, Ganderbal, is facing trial for serious offences under Sections 120-B of the IPC; Sections 17, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act; and Sections 8, 21, 25 and 29 of the NDPS Act. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has alleged that huge consignments of heroin were smuggled from across the border and that the proceeds were channelised to proscribed terrorist outfits including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Hizbul Mujahideen (HM).
Appearing for the applicant, Advocates Tanisha and Umair A. Andrabi argued that Shah is a law-abiding citizen who has been falsely implicated, is not named in the original FIR and that no recovery of contraband has been effected from him. They submitted that the strict bail bar under Section 43D(5) UAPA and Section 37 NDPS Act was not attracted in his case, and pressed for bail on the ground that he has remained in custody for over four years and the trial, involving a large number of witnesses, is unlikely to conclude in the near future. Parity was also sought with certain co-accused who have already been granted bail by the Supreme Court and the High Court.
Opposing the plea, Special Public Prosecutor K.S. Pathania, appearing for the NIA, contended that the case represents a “deep-rooted narco-terror conspiracy” where narcotic consignments were systematically pushed into the Union Territory and the proceeds allegedly routed to terrorist organisations. It was submitted that Shah, while working at the showroom of co-accused Showkat Ahmad Parray (A-8), became addicted to heroin and then started supplying “chitta” (heroin) on Parray’s directions to co-accused Afaq Ahmad Wani (A-4) and others. The agency further alleged that Shah procured a fake SIM card and handed it over to absconding accused Saleem Andrabi (A-5), thereby facilitating the broader conspiracy.
The court noted that the NIA has collected substantial oral, documentary and digital evidence against Shah. Particular reliance was placed on the statements of protected witnesses, who, according to the prosecution, have given detailed accounts of multiple heroin transactions running into lakhs of rupees, allegedly involving Shah alongside other accused. One such protected witness has described several instances where he claims to have accompanied Parray and Shah during the sale of heroin and the exchange of large amounts of cash.
Crucially, the judge recorded that 14 prosecution witnesses relating specifically to Shah are yet to be examined, including witnesses to disclosure, recovery, seizure and arrest memos, as well as forensic and call detail records (CDR) witnesses. At this stage, the court observed, it would be premature to form any firm view on the prima facie truthfulness or otherwise of the accusations, a satisfaction which is mandated under the special bail provisions of UAPA and NDPS before any relaxation can be considered.
On the legal touchstone, the court held that the “embargo” contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and Section 37 of the NDPS Act squarely applies to the case, given the nature of the allegations and the materials produced. The plea of parity was also rejected, the court pointing out that the role ascribed to Shah, the nature of evidence against him and the number of material witnesses still to be examined, distinguish his case from those co-accused who have been enlarged on bail.
“The accused/applicant A-10 Altaf Ahmed Shah does not deserve the latitude of bail at this stage. Further, if the accused is enlarged on bail, public interests and the interests of the State/UT shall be put to stake,” the court observed, while dismissing the application.
At the same time, taking note of the fact that Shah has been in custody for more than four years, the court directed the prosecution to ensure that all material witnesses concerning him are examined at the earliest, so that there is no undue delay in the progress of the trial. It was also clarified that the observations made in the bail order are purely tentative and confined to the adjudication of the present application, and shall not prejudice the merits of the main case. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
