Court emphasizes strictures of UA(P) Act, dismisses appeal by Syed Irfan Ahmed in Hizb-ul-Mujahideen conspiracy case
In a significant ruling, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has dismissed the bail appeal of Syed Irfan Ahmed, accused of being a key intermediary in a Hizb-ul-Mujahideen terror conspiracy case. The bench, comprising Justices Sindhu Sharma and Shahzad Azeem, underscored the rigorous provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UA(P) Act), which limit the application of conventional bail principles in cases involving terrorism charges.
The court highlighted that the prima facie evidence collected during the investigation pointed to Ahmed's involvement in a larger conspiracy to wage war against India, involving arms smuggling and facilitation of terrorist activities. Ahmed, along with other co-accused, faces charges under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UA(P) Act, with the court noting the substantial evidence against him, including financial transfers and communication records.
The bench dismissed arguments that the delay in trial warranted bail, stressing that the UA(P) Act's Section 43-D(5) imposes strict conditions that override such conventional considerations. The court also criticized Ahmed's conduct of filing multiple bail applications on health grounds before different forums, labeling it an abuse of court process and forum shopping, further disqualifying him from discretionary relief.
Despite arguments presented by Ahmed's counsel regarding his clean past record and claims of assisting in the investigation, the court was unpersuaded, noting that the allegations against him were serious and supported by prima facie evidence. The decision reaffirms the judiciary's cautious approach in cases involving national security, particularly under special statutes like the UA(P) Act.
Bottom line:-
Bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 cannot be granted based on conventional principles, such as delay in trial, given the restrictive nature of the Act and the prima facie evidence of involvement in terrorist activities.
Statutory provision(s):
National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 Section 21, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 43D(5), Indian Penal Code Sections 120B, 121, 121A, 122, UA(P) Act Sections 17, 18, 19, 38, 39, 40
Syed Irfan Ahmed v. NIA Jammu, (Jammu And Kashmir)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2897244
