NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY Vs. ZAHOOR AHMAD SHAH WATALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The respondent is named as Accused No.10 in the First Information Report dated 30th May, 2017, registered by the Officer­in­charge of Police Station, NIA, Delhi, for offences punishable under Sections 120B , 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code (" IPC ") and Sections 13,16,17,18,20,38,39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, (for short "the 1967 Act"). The respondent (Accused No.10) filed an application for bail before the District and Sessions Judge, Special Court (NIA), New Delhi, which came to be rejected on 8th June, 2018. That order has been reversed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.768/2018 vide order dated 13th September, 2018. The High Court directed release of the respondent on bail subject to certain conditions. That decision is the subject matter of this appeal filed by the prosecuting agency ­ the appellant herein.

(3.) The Designated Court opined that there are serious allegations against the respondent Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (Accused No.10) of being involved in unlawful acts and terror funding in conspiracy with other accused persons; he had acted as a conduit for transfer of funds received from terrorist Accused No.1 Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, ISI, Pakistan High Commission, New Delhi and also from a source in Dubai, to Hurriyat leaders/secessionists/terrorists; and had helped them in waging war against the Government of India by repeated attacks on security forces and Government establishments and by damaging public property including by burning schools etc. It then noted that the accusation against the respondent (Accused No.10) was of being a part of a larger conspiracy to systematically upturn the establishment to cause secession of J & K from the Union of India. Keeping in mind the special provisions in Section 43D of the 1967 Act and the exposition in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur and Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (1994) 4 SCC 602 Niranjan Singh Karam Singh Punjabi, Advocate Vs. Jitendra Bhimraj Bijjaya and Ors. (1990) 4 SCC 76, Manohar Lal Sharma Vs. Union of India (2017) 11 SCC 783and Jayanta Kumar Ghosh and Ors. Vs. State of Assam and Anr. (2010) 6 Gauhati Law Reports 727, it proceeded to analyse the material on record and observed thus: