HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT SRINAGAR

CrlA (D) No. 15/2021

CrlM No.1064/2021

Reserved on 20.05.2022.

Pronounced on 25.05.2022.

Waheed ur Rehman Parra

..... petitioner (s)

Through :- Mr. Sharik Reyaz, Advocate

V/s

UT of J&K through Investigating Officer,

P/S Counter Intelligence

.....Respondent(s)

Through :- Ms. Asifa Padroo, AAG

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1

This is an appeal by the appellant under Section 21 of the National

Investigation Act, 2008 [„the Act‟] against order dated 20.07.2021 passed by

the Special Judge Designated under the Act, Srinagar,[„trial Court‟] rejecting

the bail application of the appellant in pending challan in FIR No.31/2020

registered in Police Station, CIK Srinagar under Sections 13, 17, 18, 38, 39 &

40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [“UAPA Act”] read with

Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A & 124-A IPC.

2

The appellant has challenged the order of rejection of his bail by

the trial Court inter alia on the ground that FIR No. 05/2020 was registered on

11.01.2020 against one Syed Naveed Mushtaq and ors., in Police Station

Qazigund under Sections 18, 19, 20, 38, 39 of UAPA Act read with Section

2

Crl A(D) No.15/2021

7/25 Arms Act and Section 3/4 Explosive Substances Act. The investigation of

the said FIR was thereafter taken over by the National Investigating Agency

under the Act and the case was re-registered as RC.01/2020/NIA/JMU on

17.01.2020 and in the said case, the appellant was arrested. The appellant filed

an application for bail before the Court of 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge,

Jammu (Designated Special Judge under the Act), however, during the

pendency of the said bail application, the respondents, on same set of

allegations,

which

were

subject

matter

of

investigation

in

FIR

No. RC.01/2020/NIA/JMU, registered another FIR i.e. FIR No. 31/2020 in

Police Station, CIK Srinagar under Sections 13, 17, 18, 38, 39 & 40 of UAPA

Act read with Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A & 124-A IPC and as soon as the

appellant was released on bail in RC.01/2020/NIA/JMU, he was arrested in the

subsequent FIR i.e. FIR No. 31/2020 and this was done only with a view to

attain collateral purpose of detaining the appellant illegally and unlawfully.

The constitutional guarantees available to the appellant have been violated with

impunity.

3.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has laid much stress

on the submission that once an FIR was registered against the appellant

wherein he was released on bail, on same set of allegations, the second FIR

could not have been registered against him and this being an important aspect,

has been ignored by the trial Court while rejecting the bail plea of the

appellant. Learned counsel further argues that while rejecting the bail plea of

the appellant, the trial Court has not taken into consideration the fact that from

the charge-sheet as well as the material placed on record by way of evidence

collected during the investigation, the accusations are not made out against the

appellant and that on same accusations and allegations, he had already been

3

Crl A(D) No.15/2021

granted bail in FIR No. RC.01/2020/NIA/JMU by the 3^rd Additional Sessions

Judge, Special Judge, Jammu.

4.

It is the contention of learned counsel appearing for the appellant

that the trial Court, while passing impugned order dated 20.07.2021 rejecting

the bail application of the appellant, has erred in law in not appreciating that

proviso to sub-Section 5 of Section 43-D of UAPA Act