Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Sanjeev Kumar, Sanjay Parihar, JJ
Union Territory Th. Police Station Chanpora – Appellant
Versus
Sameer Ahmad Koka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Parihar. J.
1. Appellants are aggrieved of order dated 31st July 2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (designated court under NIA) Srinagar, in case FIR 8/2022 u/s 13 ULA(P) Act of PS Chanpora. In terms of order impugned, respondent appears to have been let on bail. Appellant’s claim that the order impugned is in contravention of law because the Court below has not appreciated the fact that there were sufficient evidence connecting the respondent with the commission of offense. That the Court below while deciding the bail application was required to consider the merits of the case in the manner that the respondent was working as OGW for Terrorist Organization TRF (banned organization) which has emerged to be a national security suspect. The respondent was actively involved in providing logistic support to the members of the said organization who had unleashed a spate of terror by killing persons especially on soft targets. That the trial Court has sifted the evidence at the stage which is against law. Investigating Agency had cited Thirteen (13) prosecution witnesses who were yet to be recorded, thus there was no material before the trial Court to have allowed it
The court affirmed that bail should not be denied solely based on association with a terrorist organization, emphasizing the presumption of innocence and the need for substantial evidence.
The court upheld the trial court's rejection of bail, emphasizing the applicability of Section 43-D(5) of the UAP Act due to the serious nature of the charges against the appellant.
Rejection of application of Bail – Rioting/violence – Protest against the CAA -Petitioner Intended to paralyse the governance of Delhi by violent means to force the Union Govt, to withdraw CAA
(1) Bail application – Exercise of general power to grant bail under UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope – In dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, courts are merely examining if there i....
The court held that a lack of 'clear and present danger' can justify granting bail under UAPA, even when a prima facie case exists, emphasizing the importance of protecting fundamental rights.
The court ruled that, under UAPA, bail cannot be granted where prima facie evidence establishes serious allegations against national security, emphasizing the heightened standard for bail in terroris....
The court established that for offenses under the UA(P) Act, mere association with a terrorist organization is insufficient for conviction; intent to further the organization's activities must be pro....
(1) Bail application – Question of grant of bail concern both liberty of individuals undergoing criminal prosecution as well as interest of criminal justice system in ensuring that those who commit c....
Bail petition – Burden would be on accused to overcome threshold limit prescribed under Section 43D(5), Proviso of UAPA.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
