The court upheld the trial court's rejection of bail, emphasizing that intricate questions of the case's merits are not to be considered at the bail stage.

ORDER :

01. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 08.06.2024 (for short, ‘impugned order’), passed by the Court of learned Additional District & Sessions Judge (Designated Special Court under NIA Act), Kupwara (for short, ‘trial court’) in a case titled ‘UT of J&K vs. Sajad Ahmad Dar & Ors whereby the trial court, while observing that the offences attributed to the applicant/appellant fall under Chapters IV and VI of ULA (P) Act, rejected the application of the applicant/appellant, for release on bail.

02. The appellant has challenged the impugned order on the grounds that the trial court has committed error/mistake while passing the impugned order, without appreciating the medical report wherein the appellant, who is an innocent and is not linked with any terror organization, is suffering from deadly disease and his continuous detention would be fatal to his life at any point of time; that the trial court, while rejecting the bail application, has relied upon the statement given by one of the accused who has named the appellant in the present FIR which, as per the law laid down, cannot be read against another accused; that there is no incriminating material/arms etc recovered from the possession of the accused person; that taking into account that neither in the police report nor in the FIR, it has been mentioned that the appellant is the member of terrorist organization, which is referred in the first Schedule of the Act, the trial court could not have rejected the bail application of the appellant on that aspect; that Section 43(d) of ULA(P) Act has no application to the present case because the FIR has been registered under Section 13 of ULA (P) Act-1967, furthermore, the objections filed coupled with the contents of the FIR does not make out a case under Section 18 or 38 of the ULA (P) Act, as such, findings of the Trial Court that the bar of Section 43(d) operates is not correct, otherwise also Section 43 (d) of ULA (P) Act does not say that the bail cannot be granted except that if the case is covered under Chapter-IV, and in that eventuality, the Public Prosecutor is to be heard and only thereafter, the bail can be refused to the accused.

03. It is also stated in the grounds that the continuous detention of the appellant would be fatal to his family because he is the only male earner of his family having old aged ailing parents; that the allegations leveled against the appellant do not make out any case under section 13 ULA(P) Act, as such, there was no reason for the police to record the alleged supplementary statement of the witnesses, which smacks of malafides on the part of the Investigating Officer, who is trying to implicate the appellant in a false case; that it was the legal obligation of the trial court to protect and preserve the liberty of the appellant, who has been illegally detained by the respondent police, as such, the impugned order is against the mandate of law. Lastly, the appellant has prayed that the impugned order dated 08.06.2024 be set aside and he be admitted to bail and ordered to be released from custody.

04. Pursuant to the notice, reply/objections to the appeal/interim application has been filed by the respondent, wherein, it is pleaded that the conclusion drawn by the said court has been only the conclusion required to be drawn in the matter in light of commission of offences committed by the accused persons including the appellant; that there is cogent evidence available viz-a-viz involvement of the accused persons including the appellant in the commission of crime directly; that the appellant is dangerous and threat for the sovereignty and integrity of the nation and if the appellant gets bail, he will create nuisance in the society and instigate the youths to join militancy; that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the appellant would jump the concession of bail, if granted to him; that the appellant may hamper or tamper with the prosecut