Bail under UAPA Section 43-D(5) denied despite over five years' custody; prima facie material including bank transactions shows direct terror funding involvement, trial progress outweighs delay.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Parihar, J.

1. The appellant is aggrieved of the order dated 04.01.2025 passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Designated Court under the UAPA), Jammu (for short, “the trial Court”), whereby the appellant, who is facing trial in FIR No. 42/2020 for offences under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter, “the Act of 1967”), has been denied the concession of bail. The trial Court has rejected the bail plea on the ground that the offences alleged against the appellant fall within Chapters IV and VI of the Act of 1967; that there are strong grounds for believing that the appellant has committed offences under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the Act of 1967, for which he stands formally charged and is facing trial; that the evidence collected during investigation, including mobile transcription, call detail reports and alleged money transactions, prima facie, make out the commission of offences against the appellant; and that there is no reason to hold that the accusations against him are untrue. The trial Court has thus held that the appellant has not been able to persuade it to lift the bar contained in Section 43-D (5) of the Act of 1967.

2. Precisely stated, the appellant along with co-accused stands formally charged by the trial Court vide order dated 29.10.2022, whereby he, along with the co-accused, has been found to have committed offences under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the Act of 1967, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The appellant had earlier also applied before the trial Court for grant of bail, which, in terms of the impugned order, has been denied.

3. As per the prosecution, the appellant along with the co-accused was found collecting funds for execution of terrorist activities in the Doda area and was in touch with terrorists and Pakistan-based LeT handler, Haroon @ Khubaib. It has been alleged that the appellant and the co-accused are members of the banned terror outfit LeT and had raised and distributed funds for terror-related activities. They are alleged to be involved in the racket of raising, receiving and distributing the proceeds of terrorism with the intention of flourishing militancy and recruiting new boys into militancy, thereby posing a grave threat to the unity, integrity and sovereignty of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir. It is further alleged that money was transferred to them by Mohd. Amin Bhat @ Haroon @ Khubaib with the objective of promoting militancy in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

4. Insofar as the appellant is concerned, according to the prosecution case, he was a member of the LeT module/outfit and had received terror-funding money in his account for further distribution among LeT cadre. On the directions of handlers Haroon and Asif, the appellant allegedly received various funds, out of which he paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/- to one Farooq Malik at Iqra Masjid, Doda, for delivery of arms and ammunition. It is also alleged that, on further directions from the handlers, he received SIM cards and grenades from one Toqueer and handed over the same to one Asif. According to the investigation, offences under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the Act of 1967 stands established against him.

5. The respondent has opposed the bail plea of the appellant before the trial Court on the ground that his earlier bail application had been de