Jammu, Aug 22 A special NIA court here has rejected the bail plea of Insha Jan alias Insha Tariq, an accused in the 2019 Pulwama suicide attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel, observing that sufficient material existed on record to presume that the accusations against her were prima facie true.
In his 15-page order delivered on August 20, Special Judge Prem Sagar held that the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) also operated against the accused and prevented her release on bail at this stage.
Jan, a resident of Harkipora village in south Kashmir’s Pulwama district, was arrested along with her father, Peer Tariq Ahmad Shah, on March 3, 2020.
She is facing trial on charges under the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), the UAPA, the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act. The court framed charges against her on December 10, 2022.
According to the NIA’s chargesheet, Jan was allegedly involved in the terror conspiracy and remained in constant contact with Pakistani terrorist Muhammad Umar Farooq, who, along with another Pakistani terrorist Mohd Kamran Ali, was involved in planning the Pulwama attack before they were eliminated in separate encounters by security forces.
She is also accused of providing food, shelter and other logistical support to the two terrorists and other Jaish-e-Mohammed operatives.
Besides, a viral video of suicide bomber Adil Ahmad Dar, which went viral after the February 14, 2019, attack, was allegedly recorded at her house on January 28 and 29.
The court's decision came after it considered the arguments from both the defence and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
The defence relied principally on Jan’s prolonged incarceration, alleged delay in trial, and her health condition, while the NIA opposed the bail plea citing the seriousness of the charges, the material collected during investigation, and the restrictions imposed by Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
The defence submitted that Jan has been in custody for more than six years and argued that the prolonged trial had made her continued incarceration unjustified.
The bail application said that 49 prosecution witnesses had been examined out of 240 witnesses at the relevant stage, with the defence arguing that, at the existing pace, the trial could continue for many more years.
It also claimed that the witnesses examined had not directly or indirectly connected the applicant with the commission of the offences and that no incriminating material had been recovered from her.
The defence also invoked her health, claiming that she was suffering from chronic dermatological problems, cervical spondylosis and chronic headache and required specialised medical treatment.
Jan also claimed that her implication in the case was “totally false without any reasonable ground”.
Opposing the bail plea, the NIA said the application filed by the accused was devoid of merit and misconceived both on fact and law.
“The accused is a highly motivated terror associate involved in a grave and serious offence which she committed and gave effect to in a well-planned manner, reflecting her maturity of mind rather than innocence, indicating that her plea is more like a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law,” the NIA told the court.
The anti-terror probe agency said Jan, along with her father, facilitated safe shelter to the JeM terrorists at their house and provided them with food and other logistics.
She and her family were introduced to the JeM terrorists by her neighbour in May, 2018, it said.
“Pakistani terrorists Farooq and Ali came to their house in June, 2018. Subsequently, the JeM terrorists started coming to her home regularly with arms and ammunition.
“In January 2019, Farooq, Dar (suicide bomber) and Sameer Ahmad Dar came to her house with sophisticated arms and ammunition and stayed for many days,” the NIA said.
The agency also relied upon the communications between Jan and Farooq, including WhatsApp calls, voice notes and photographs recovered from his mobile phone after his killing.
The court also placed significant emphasis on Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which mandates that an accused in custody under Chapters IV and VI of the Act cannot be released on bail if the court, after reviewing the case diary or chargesheet, finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
“There is sufficient evidence to presume that prima facie, the accusation against the applicant is true,” the court said, rejecting Jan’s bail application.
The court also rejected delay as a sufficient ground for bail in the circumstances of the case. It noted that the trial was underway and that witnesses were being examined.
“If the applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that she will influence the key witnesses which might hamper the process of justice,” the judge said, rejecting the argument that delay in the trial, by itself, justified bail in the present case.
The court also said the medical condition of the accused did not warrant bail.
“The disease of the applicant/accused is not a life-threatening condition warranting urgent relief,” the judge said, but directed jail authorities to ensure all types of medical care to her.
Importantly, the court clarified that the observations made while deciding the bail plea would not affect the merits of the main criminal trial.
