Early Times Report
JAMMU, May 11: The Special Judge NIA Cases, Jammu, Prem Sagar, has rejected the bail application of three accused persons facing trial in the 2022 killing of Sarpanch Shabir Ahmed Mir in Kulgam, observing that the allegations involve a serious criminal conspiracy linked with terror activities and that the material on record indicates prima facie involvement of the applicants.
The bail plea was moved by Danish Ayaz Dar of Mohammadpora Kulgam, Faisal Hameed Wagey of Adoora Kulgam and Nisar Rashid Bhat of Tengpora Shopian in NIA case RC-01/2022/NIA/JMU, registered under Sections 302, 120-B, 121-A and 122 IPC, Sections 16, 18, 19, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA, Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act. Advocate I.H. Bhat appeared for the accused, while Special Public Prosecutor R.S. Slathia represented the NIA.
According to the prosecution, Sarpanch Shabir Ahmed Mir was fired upon by terrorists on March 11, 2022, and later succumbed to his injuries. During investigation, the involvement of the three applicants allegedly surfaced, and they were arrested on March 14, 2022. The NIA alleged that the accused had entered into a conspiracy with active Hizbul Mujahideen terrorists Zubair Ahmed Sofi and Mushtaq Ahmed Itoo and provided logistical support in the killing.
The defence argued that the accused had been in custody for more than three years, the trial was moving slowly, only a limited number of witnesses had been examined, and the case was largely dependent upon disclosure statements. It was further submitted that the accused were permanent residents of Jammu and Kashmir and were not likely to abscond.
Opposing the bail, SPP R.S. Slathia submitted that there was a statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA and that the accusations were prima facie true. The NIA also argued that arms and ammunition had been recovered on the disclosure of the accused and that CDR/IPDR material allegedly showed their movement, interconnection and meetings before and after the incident.
The Court observed that in UAPA cases, bail cannot be granted in a routine manner and that the court is not required to conduct a detailed appreciation of evidence at the bail stage. It further held that the delay in trial was not attributable to the prosecution and that delay alone could not be treated as a sufficient ground for bail by the trial court in a case involving serious terror-related offences.
The Court also noted that two accused in the case were still absconding and that if the applicants were released on bail at this stage, there was a possibility of their fleeing from justice or influencing material witnesses yet to be examined.
Holding that the material available on record indicated the involvement of the applicants in furtherance of a conspiracy for unlawful activities, the Special NIA Court rejected the bail application.
(JNF) |
