The court held that mere familial ties or possession of money does not establish prima facie evidence of intent to support terrorism, warranting bail.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Parihar, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant challenging the order dated 07.07.2025 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Judge under the NIA Act) (hereinafter referred to as “the Trial Court”), whereby the bail application of the appellant in FIR No. 109/2022 was rejected. The said FIR pertains to offences under Sections 120-B, 122 IPC, Sections 17, 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act.

2. The factual matrix, in brief, is that on 14.09.2022 at about 9:00 p.m., Police Station Mahore received information from a reliable source that one Zaffer Iqbal, husband of the appellant, had close links with the Lashkar-e-Taiba organisation. It was alleged that his brother, Mohd. Ishaq, had earlier been killed in an encounter while being associated with the said organisation, and that another relative, Abdul Rashid, was in Pakistan and linked with it. On the basis of this information, FIR No. 109/2022 came to be registered. Zaffer Iqbal was apprehended while travelling from Dharmari to Mahore and a mobile phone was recovered from his possession. During interrogation, he allegedly disclosed that he was in possession of prohibited arms and ammunition, including two Glock pistols, four magazines, twenty-two 9mm rounds, a hand grenade and cash amounting to Rs.1.81 lakhs, which were stated to be concealed in a forest area. On the basis of his disclosure, the arms, ammunition and cash were recovered. He further disclosed that part of the cash had been handed over to the appellant, informing her that the amount had been received from Pakistan. The appellant was subsequently arrested on 15.09.2022 and it is alleged that during questioning she disclosed that she had kept the said cash at her parental house, from where the amount of Rs.1.81 lakhs was recovered.

3. Upon completion of investigation, offences under Sections 120-B and 122 IPC, Sections 17, 18, 20, 23, 38 and 39 of the UAPA, Sections 4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act and Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act were found established against the accused persons. However, so far as the appellant is concerned, she was formally charged only under Sections 13, 38 and 40 of the UAPA. She has been in custody since 15.09.2022. It was submitted that the prosecution has examined twelve witnesses so far and that there is no likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future. The appellant claims that she is a poor and innocent woman, falsely implicated, and that the case against her is founded mainly on disclosure statements which have no evidentiary value. It was also urged that the money allegedly recovered from her parental house had no nexus with any terrorist activity and that she had been married to the co-accused only a month prior to her arrest.

4. Per contra, the respondent opposed the appeal by invoking the bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. It was contended that the appellant’s role was not peripheral but integral, inasmuch as she had knowingly received and retained money obtained through drone-dropped consignments from Pakistan, which was intended to fund terrorist activities. It was further contended that Rs.1 lakh was deposited in her account in the form of an FDR immediately after receipt of the consignment and that the money trail did not align with the known sources of income of the co-accused. According to the respondent, the recovery of cash at the instance of the appellant, corroborated by bank records, established her complicity in providing logistical and financial support to a terrorist organisation.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, however, argued that the entire case against her rests upon the disclosure statement of her husband and the alleged recovery of cash. It was submitted that the mobile phone relied upon by the prosecution belonged exclusively to the co-accused and that all communications w