The stringent provisions of the UAPA Act require exceptional circumstances for granting bail in terror-related cases.

JUDGMENT :

Puneet Gupta, J.

1. The appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.02.2023 passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Judge Under NIA Act) whereby the bail application filed by the appellant herein stands dismissed. The challan was presented against the appellant-accused, Khalid Latif and eleven co-accused in a terror related case arising out of FIR No. 42/2020 under various sections of UAPA Act, 1967. The learned trial court has framed charges in the matter. The charges have been framed against the appellant-accused for the commission of offence under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 & 40 of the said Act and is facing trial for the aforesaid offences.

2. The trial court has dismissed the bail application moved by the accused on the ground that the appellant is prima facie involved in raising terror funds for subversive activities after hatching criminal conspiracy with the handlers of Pakistan and the co-accused. Serious prejudice shall be caused to the prosecution in case the accused is admitted to bail.

3. Objections to the application have been filed.

4. Ms. Rozina Afzal, learned counsel appearing for the accused has submitted that the accused is entitled to bail as the evidence collected against the accused is inadmissible in law and unsubstantiated. The counsel has referred to the statements which according to her are relevant to the case of the appellant and submits that the evidence on which the challan has been produced by the respondent cannot be a reason for not granting the bail to the accused. The evidence cannot bring home the guilt of the accused even remotely after trial. The contention raised in the nut-shell is that the rigour of Section 45-D (5) of the Act will not be applicable.

5. Ms. Monika Kohli, learned Senior Additional Advocate General has argued that the trial court has found sufficient material on record and, therefore, the charges have been framed by the trial court against the accused. The involvement of the accused along with the co-accused is very much evident from the allegations which have been levelled against them. The accused is involved in terrorist activities and letting him off will only prejudice the sovereignty and security of the Nation.

6. The apprehending of the accused, namely, Mubashir Bhat led to the investigation and during investigation other accused were also found to be involved and thus the challan came to be presented against them. The terror funding and handling of the same by the accused persons along with persons from Pakistan for terrorist activities in the country as mentioned in the challan and also handling of arms and ammunition by them came to fore during investigation. The court need not go into the role of all the accused persons arrayed in the challan for the purposes of disposal of the present appeal and the court will necessarily confine itself to the case of the appellant.

7. The accused-Khalid Latif Butt is stated to be member of LeT outfit and handled money and arms and ammunition for carrying out terrorist activities in the country. The accused is stated to have given Rs.20,000/- to one Farooq Malik on the directions of Mohd. Amin alias Haroon and Asif, accused in the case for delivery of arms and ammunition. The accused is also alleged to have received grenades and SIM cards from one Toqueer Ahmad-accused and handed over the same to accused-Asif.

8. The main plank of the argument of the appellant is that the statement given by the co-accused before the police against the appellant has no evidentiary value and the conspiracy theory also alleged against the accused is without force of law. The counsel has also argued that Section 10 of the Evidence Act cannot also be applied qua the accused as there is no evidence on record to hold so. Infact no terror activity can be said to have been made out against the accused qua the evidence that has been collected by the agency.

9. The Court has gone through the record of the case