ABDUL RASHID Vs. U.T. OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present appeal, the appellant calls in question the order passed by the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, NIA Court, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the Trial Court ), whereby the bail application preferred by him came to be dismissed. The appellant is facing trial in FIR No. 06/2010 registered at Police Station JIC/SIA for offences punishable under Ss. 13, 18, 18-B, 20 and 38 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The grievance projected by the appellant is that the impugned order suffers from legal infirmity, inasmuch as the material prosecution witnesses examined so far have not supported the case of the prosecution, yet the Trial Court has declined bail despite the appellant being in custody since the filing of the charge-sheet.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that the FIR pertains to the year 2010 and that the appellant, though formerly a militant, had surrendered and thereafter faced prosecution in at least two criminal cases in which he earned acquittal. It was submitted that post surrender, the appellant did not indulge in any unlawful or criminal activity, and even his detention under the Public Safety Act did not survive judicial scrutiny. It was further argued that though the case was registered in the year 2010, the charge-sheet came to be filed only in the year 2022, that too without any legally admissible evidence, rendering the entire prosecution case suspect and untenable.

(3.) It was further submitted that the impugned order is vitiated as no recovery whatsoever has been effected from the appellant. The SIM card alleged to have been used in commission of the offence has not been recovered, nor has the mobile phone allegedly used for making extortion calls been seized. The appellant was arrested after a lapse of more than twelve years from the date of registration of the FIR, despite having been released in the year 2014 in other cases. Learned counsel contended that even as per the case diary, one of the Investigating Officers had initially opined that no case was made out against the appellant, but for reasons unexplained, the investigation was revived in the year 2020, culminating in the appellant s arrest and filing of the charge-sheet.