| DB seeks fresh affidavit on encroachments, action taken | | NIA Court denies bail in Pulwama Terror Attack | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Aug 20: A Special NIA Court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of Insha Jan alias Insha Tariq, an accused facing trial in a terror conspiracy case, holding that the material on record prima facie indicates her alleged involvement in furtherance of a conspiracy for unlawful activities and that her release at this stage could carry the risk of influencing key prosecution witnesses.
Special Judge NIA Cases, Jammu, Prem Sagar, while dismissing Bail Application No. 381/2026, observed that the trial was already underway and witnesses were being examined. The court said the prosecution material relied upon against the accused still required corroboration from other relevant witnesses yet to be examined.
Insha Jan is facing trial in RC No. 02-2019/NIA/JMU for offences under various provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code, Arms Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Explosive Substances Act. She had sought bail principally on the grounds of prolonged incarceration, delay in trial and medical ailments. The order records that she has remained in custody for more than six years and that charges were framed against her on December 10, 2022.
According to the NIA's case placed before the court, Insha Jan, along with her father Peer Tariq Ahmad Shah, allegedly facilitated safe shelter to Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorists at their house and provided food and other logistical support. The agency alleged that Pakistani terrorists Muhammad Umar Farooq and Mohd Kamran Ali came to their house in June 2018 and that JeM terrorists thereafter began visiting the house regularly with arms and ammunition.
The prosecution further alleged that in January 2019, Muhammad Umar Farooq, Adil Ahmad Dar and Sameer Ahmad Dar stayed at the house and that on January 28 and 29, the video of fidayeen Adil Ahmad Dar, which later went viral after the attack, was recorded there. The NIA also claimed that technical analysis established Insha Jan's presence at the house at the relevant time.
The agency further relied upon alleged digital evidence, including WhatsApp calls between a mobile number used by the accused and Muhammad Umar Farooq's Pakistani number. It claimed that Insha Jan's number was found saved in Farooq's phone and that several voice notes and photographs of her were recovered from data extracted from his mobile phone.
Opposing the bail plea, NIA Inspector Arun Sharma maintained that the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were attracted and that the accused was not entitled to bail in view of the charges and the material collected during investigation. The prosecution also argued that the delay in trial by itself could not be treated as sufficient ground for bail in a case involving grave offences.
The defence, led by Advocate Yogesh Bakshi, argued that prolonged incarceration had seriously affected the applicant's health and that she was suffering from chronic dermatological problems, cervical spondylosis and chronic oculogenic headache. It was contended that she required specialised medical treatment and that continued incarceration was infringing her right to a speedy trial.
For the NIA, K.S. Pathania, SPP, along with Chandan Kumar Singh and Ashwani Verma, Public Prosecutors, opposed the application. The prosecution submitted that bail on medical grounds could be granted only in exceptional circumstances where the ailment could not adequately be treated in custody and requisite facilities were unavailable in jail.
The court found that the medical condition placed before it was not life-threatening so as to warrant urgent release. It further held that the accused was facing serious offences falling under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA and that sufficient material existed at this stage to regard the accusations as prima facie true for the purpose of considering bail.
On the plea of delay, the court observed that trial was progressing and witnesses were being examined on dates fixed, barring certain occasions. It held that delay, in the circumstances of the case, could not by itself override the prima facie material relied upon by the prosecution or justify release under the special enactment.
Rejecting the bail application, the court clarified that its observations were confined only to deciding the bail plea and would have no bearing on the merits of the main trial.
At the same time, the Special Judge directed the Superintendent, District Jail Baramulla, to provide all necessary medical care to Insha Jan for her health issues and to submit a compliance report before the court every fortnight. The application was accordingly disposed of. (JNF) |
|
