Early Times Report
Jammu, Oct 30: Taking a stern view of allegations involving the transportation of weapons for terrorist activities in Jammu and Kashmir, the Special NIA Court, Jammu, has rejected the bail application of an accused allegedly associated with Lashkar-e-Mustafa (LeM), an offshoot of the proscribed terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM), holding that the seriousness of the accusations and prima facie material on record did not justify his release at the present stage.
Special Judge Prem Sagar dismissed the bail application of Mohd Ehsanullah alias Guddu Ansari, a resident of Chapra district in Bihar, accused of participating in an alleged criminal conspiracy to transport and supply weapons to the terrorist organisation.
The case relates to NIA Case No. RC-01/2021/NIA/JMU, arising out of FIR No. 16/2021 registered at Police Station Gangyal, Jammu, under Sections 120-B, 121-A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 25(1AA) of the Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, the investigation uncovered an alleged conspiracy involving several accused persons who were engaged in procuring, transporting and delivering weapons for Lashkar-e-Mustafa to facilitate terrorist activities, particularly in the Jammu region.
The NIA alleged that Lashkar-e-Mustafa was formed under the leadership of Hidayat Ullah Malik alias Hasnain as an offshoot of Jaish-e-Mohammed with the objective of carrying out terrorist activities while avoiding international scrutiny.
The investigation attributed a specific role to Ehsanullah in transporting a consignment containing four pistols, eight magazines and 200 rounds of ammunition.
According to the prosecution, on January 3, 2021, the accused allegedly collected the weapons from co-accused Javed Alam and subsequently travelled to Ambala, where the consignment was delivered to another accused, Jan Mohammad Teeli alias Irshad.
The prosecution further alleged that Ehsanullah received ₹10,000 for transporting the consignment.
Advocate A.R. Khan, appearing for the accused, argued that his client had been falsely implicated and had no knowledge of the alleged terrorist purpose behind the delivery.
The defence submitted that the accused had remained incarcerated for more than four years, the investigation had been completed and charges had already been framed.
It was further argued that 154 prosecution witnesses had been cited in the charge sheet and that the witnesses examined so far had not established his involvement in the alleged offences.
Opposing the application, Special Public Prosecutor K.S. Pathania, appearing for the NIA, submitted that sufficient material existed to establish a prima facie case against the accused.
The prosecution contended that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposed stringent restrictions on granting bail where accusations involving terrorist offences appeared prima facie true.
It further submitted that the accused’s alleged role in transporting weapons formed part of a larger conspiracy threatening national security.
After considering the rival submissions and examining the material placed on record, the court observed that the statutory restrictions governing bail in UAPA cases could not be ignored merely because the accused had undergone prolonged incarceration.
The court referred to various Supreme Court judgments governing the consideration of bail under special anti-terror legislation and emphasised that the material collected during investigation must be assessed as a whole at the bail stage.
The court also noted that charges had already been framed and the trial was underway, with prosecution witnesses being examined.
Observing that the material on record prima facie indicated the accused’s involvement in the alleged conspiracy, the court held that the gravity of the offences, the applicant’s alleged role and the larger interests of the State weighed against granting bail.
Accordingly, the Special NIA Court rejected the bail application.
The court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the bail plea and would have no bearing on the merits of the main case. |
