The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, especially section 43(D), in cases related to terrorism, and the requirement for reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the accused were prima facie true.

Mr. M.K. Hanjura, J.

In this petition, the petitioner/accused craves the indulgence of this Court in admitting him to bail for the commission of offences under section 13, 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, on the grounds, Inter alia, that he was detained by the security forces without any rhyme or reason whatsoever and was lodged in Police Station Baramulla, where a case bearing FIR No. 107/2017 for the commission of the aforesaid offences was registered against him. He moved an application for enlarging him on bail before the learned Principal District Judge, Baramulla and the learned Principal District Judge, Baramulla by his order dated 22.01.2018, directed that the petition of the petitioner is bereft of any merit and substance and, therefore, the same is rejected.

2. It is stated in the application that the accused is a peace loving citizen of the State. He has not committed any offences and as such, his detention is unreasonable and unjustified. It is also pleaded in the application that the trial court has failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position governing the law of bails in the right perspective. The findings recorded by the trial court in rejecting the bail, are contrary to the legal position evolved on the subject. The accused/applicant has been languishing in the jail for the last more than six months. He is around 74 years of age. He has never indulged in any unlawful activity. He has an unblemished past history. The investigation of the case is almost complete and his further detention in the case will not serve any purpose. It will amount to pre-trial detention which is not only against the concept of liberty, guaranteed in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India but has other consequences also. The accused is presumed to be innocent unless and until his guilt is proved and there is nothing on record which can connect the accused/applicant with the commission of the crime imputed to him. The offence in which the accused/applicant has been arrested, does not carry the punishment of death or life imprisonment. It is only in cases where the punishment is death or life imprisonment that bail can be refused and in all other cases grant of bail is the rule. The applicant/accused is suffering from various ailments and prison hell will destroy and damage the condition of his health.

3. The State has resisted and controverted the application of the applicant on the grounds that on 28.09.2017, startling inputs were received from reliable sources to the effect that some of the miscreants are providing logistic support to the terrorists affiliated with various proscribed organizations i.e. Lashkar Toiba, JEM, HM, FT and local militants. The reprobates besides arranging shelter for them and facilitating their free movement, undermine the peace and stability of the area. On receipt of the information, a case under FIR No. 107/2017, came to be registered triggering inquest in the matter at Police Station Baramulla. Consequently, investigation was set in motion. The statements of the witnesses, were recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C, 1973and in addition the statement of witnesses under section 164 CrPC, 1973 were also recorded. During the course of the investigation of the case, the movement of foreign terrorists was reported in Halqa Gulistan payen Fatehgarh Area of the District which promoted the investigating officer to raid a house and confront the inmates with the photograph of a purported foreign terrorist namely Khalid Bhai. One Sajad Ahmad Bhat S/o Bashir Ahmad Bhat R/o Gulstan Payeen, Fatehgarh on seeing the photograph of the said terrorist admitted to have hosted him after being introduced as a guest by the petitioner herein who was known to him as a Homeopathic Doctor who had treated his father. Sajad Ahmad Bhat also disclosed before the investigating agency that the suspect i.e. the petitioner herein made him to believe that the foreign terrori