Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
G.S. SANDHAWALIA, HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN, JJ.
Amir Nazir – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency (NIA) – Respondent
CRA-D NO. 323 of 2022
Decided On : 15-02-2023
Key Points: - The court held bail not warranted due to gravity of offences and strong prima facie case linking appellant to conspiracy and grenade attack; risk of absconding if released (!) (!) - Discussion of bail standards under NDPS Act vs UAPA and the role of Section 43D(5) in bail decisions; reliance on precedents to determine prima facie sufficiency and not guilty standard (!) (!) (!) - The appeal against bail dismissal was dismissed; trial is ongoing with many witnesses yet to be examined; court urged day-to-day conduct of trial to protect Article 21 rights (!) (!) (!) - Appellant’s specific role: recruitment, facilitating grenades delivery, maintaining secure communications, and links to AGH leadership; extensive evidence of inter-coordination and destruction of evidence (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - Charges framed include multiple IPC sections and UAPA provisions; prosecution contends active involvement and conspiracy; defense argues mere acquaintanceship and lack of injury. Court weighs these against gravity and evidence (!) (!) (!) (!)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing appeal under nia act against bail refusal. (Para 1) |
| 2. arguments against granting bail due to serious charges. (Para 2) |
| 3. counsel argues appellant's limited association with accused. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 4. prior cases referenced regarding bail. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. prosecution claims appellant facilitated terrorist activities. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. legal standards for bail in terrorism cases. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 7. details of conspiracy and appellant's alleged roles. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 8. evidence indicating organized criminal activity. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 9. call details indicating communication related to bombing. (Para 16 , 17) |
| 10. concerns about flight risk and gravity of charges. (Para 18) |
| 11. court emphasizes timely trial procedures. (Para 19) |
| 12. conclusion dismissing the appeal for bail. (Para 20) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. G.S. Sandhawalia, J.
Present appeal has been filed under section 21 (4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (for short 2008 Act') against the order of the Learned Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali dated 25.03.2022, wherein the bail application was dismissed in case SC-91 of 2019 titled as NIA v. Fazil Bashir Pinchoo etc. RC- 39/2018/NIA/DLI dated 20.12.2018 under Sections 120-B, 121, 121 A, 122, 307, 506, 201 IPC, under Sections 16 , 18, 20, 23 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 (for short 1967 Act') and under Sections 3 , 6 Explosive Substances Act, 1908 registered as FIR No. 163 dated 15.09.2018 at Police Station: Division No.1, Jalandhar, of the appellant Amir Nazir who has been arrayed as A-3 by the Investigating Agency.
2. The reasoning given by the Learned Special Judge was that the present appellant is accused of facilitating the delivery of the consignment four hand grenades to Fazil Bashir Pinchoo (A-1) and Shahid Quyoom (A-2) and was part of the conspiracy of carrying out grenade attack at the premises of Police Station Maqsuddan, Jalandhar on 14.09.2018. It was held that they were in contact with each other through secure means of communication and there was a strong prima facie case against the accused and charge had also been framed. The earlier bail application had been dismissed on 19.08.2019 and there was no change in the circumstances. Resultantly, keeping in view the gravity and nature of the offence involved in the present case, it was held that it was not inclined to grant the concession of bail to the accused/appellant in the second bail application.
3. Counsel for the appellant Mr. Bhanu Pratap Singh has taken us through the paper-book diligently and tried to convince us that the association with the main accused who were no longer alive and with A-1 and A-2 was only being mere acquaintances on account of the belonging to the same area being residents of Awantipora, District Pulwama, Jammu & Kashmir (J&K). The delivery of the grenades at Jalandhar was by one "Transporter" and the alleged allegation was that it was supposedly at the instructions of the appellant. It is submitted that the said "Transporter" as such had never been arrayed as accused and identified by the Investigating Agency. It is, thus, the case of the counsel that the attack was carried out at Police Station Maqsuddan, Jalandhar on 14.09.2018 by the accused Fazil Bashir Pinchoo (A-1), Shahid Quyoom (A-2), Rauf Ahmad Mir (A- 4) and Ummer Ramzan (A-5) and on the said date the location of the said appellant was not at Jalandhar and only arrested on 06.03.2019 from Awantipora at Pulwama. It was, accordingly, his contention that as per the charge-sheet he has been accused of causing explosion in the public places and attempted to wage war against the Government of India in September, 2018 and charged under Section 121 IPC and on the issue of conspiracy against the State under Section 121 A IPC. Whereas the other charges against him were also regarding criminal conspiracy with the other accused to carry out the unlawful activities by causing the explosion at different places and causing grievous injuries and committing the offence
The court established that under the UAPA, particularly Section 43D(5), the standard for denying bail is based on whether the accusations are prima facie true, which requires a careful examination of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 43-D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and its application in granting bail to the accused durin....
The court established that involvement with a banned terrorist organization and the collection of levies for such groups constitutes serious offenses under the UA(P) Act, warranting denial of bail wh....
The court affirmed that harboring a terrorist under UAPA is a serious offense, justifying the denial of bail due to the evidence suggesting active support of terrorism.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a surface analysis of probative value of evidence at the stage of examining the question of granting bail, and the requirement for rea....
The court's decision emphasized the serious nature of the offenses, the organized network involved, and the prima facie evidence supporting the role of each accused.
Bail – Being a member of banned organization is also an offence under UA(P) Act and bail can be declined.
The court reiterated that under the UAPA, bail is the exception, emphasizing the prima facie strength of allegations against the accused involved in financing a terrorist organization.
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
