Court Cites Delayed Investigation and Lack of Credible Evidence in Bail Decision
In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted bail to Abdul Rashid, a former militant, who has been in custody since May 2022 under charges framed in a decade-old case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The division bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar, set aside the order of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, NIA Court, Jammu, which had previously denied Rashid bail.
The case against Rashid, registered in 2010, accused him of using a SIM card to make extortion calls for furthering terrorist activities in District Doda. However, the High Court highlighted significant delays in the investigation and a lack of credible evidence, such as the absence of the alleged SIM card and mobile phone used in the offenses, as critical factors undermining the prosecution's case.
The Court noted that although Rashid had a history of militancy, he had surrendered in 2010 and had been acquitted in previous criminal cases. The prolonged investigation, which only led to his arrest in 2022, along with the absence of direct evidence linking him to recent unlawful activities, raised serious doubts about the credibility of the accusations.
The High Court emphasized the principle that bail is not intended as a pre-trial punishment and should secure the accused's presence during trial. It observed that continued incarceration would violate Rashid's right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly when the trial's conclusion within a reasonable timeframe seems unlikely.
Consequently, Rashid has been granted bail on a personal bond of Rs. one lakh, with conditions to ensure his appearance in court, prevent witness tampering, and restrict his movement without prior permission. The Court clarified that its observations pertain solely to the bail matter and should not influence the trial's outcome.
Bottom Line:
Bail under UAPA - Delay in investigation and lack of credible evidence can weaken the prosecution case, allowing for bail in specific circumstances.
Statutory provision(s):
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 13, 18, 18-B, 20, 38, 43D(5), Article 21 of the Constitution of India
Abdul Rashid v. UT of J&K, (Jammu And Kashmir)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853646
