WAHEED UR REHMAN PARRA Vs. UT OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the appellant under Sec. 21 of the National Investigation Act, 2008 ["the Act?] against order dtd. 20/7/2021 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 Ss. 13, 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ["UAPA Act"] read with Ss. 120-B, 121, 121-A and 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 11/1/2020 against one Syed Naveed Mushtaq and ors., in Police Station Qazigund under Ss. 18, 19, 20, 38, 39 of UAPA Act read with Sec. 7/25 Arms Act and Sec. 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 17/1/2020 and in the said case, the appellant was arrested. The appellant filed an application for bail before the Court of 3rd 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 Ss. 13, 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of UAPA Act read with Ss. 120-B, 121, 121-A and 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 granted bail in FIR No. RC.01/2020/NIA/JMU by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge, Jammu.