Jammu, August 23: A Special NIA court in Jammu has rejected the bail plea of Insha Jan alias Insha Tariq, an accused in the alleged conspiracy linked to the 2019 Pulwama terror attack, observing that sufficient material existed on record to presume that the allegations against her were prima facie true.The Insha Jan bail plea was rejected by Special Judge Prem Sagar in a 15-page order passed on August 20. The court held that the restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) applied in the case and prevented her release on bail at this stage.Insha Jan Has Been In Custody Since 2020Insha 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 has remained in custody for more than six years and is facing trial in NIA case RC No. 02/2019/NIA/JMU under provisions of the UAPA, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act and the erstwhile Ranbir Penal Code. Charges against her were framed on December 10, 2022.The case is connected to the February 14, 2019 Pulwama terror attack, in which a suicide bomber targeted a CRPF convoy, killing 40 CRPF personnel.NIA Allegations in Pulwama Attack CaseAccording to the NIA investigation, Insha Jan and her father allegedly provided shelter, food and logistical support to Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) terrorists allegedly linked to the Pulwama attack conspiracy.The prosecution alleged that the family was introduced to JeM operatives through their neighbour Mohammad Abbas Rather in May 2018. According to the NIA, Pakistani terrorists Muhammad Umar Farooq and Mohammad Kamran Ali allegedly visited their residence in June 2018.The agency further alleged that JeM terrorists subsequently visited the house regularly and that arms and ammunition were also brought there.The Pulwama attack case prosecution further alleged that Muhammad Umar Farooq, Adil Ahmad Dar and Sameer Ahmad Dar stayed at the residence for several days in January 2019.The NIA told the Jammu NIA court that a video of Adil Ahmad Dar, identified by investigators as the suicide bomber in the 2019 Pulwama attack, was allegedly recorded at Jan’s residence on January 28 and 29, 2019.According to the prosecution, technical analysis indicated that Insha Jan was present at the residence during that period.Alleged Contact With JeM OperativeThe NIA prosecution also alleged that Insha Jan remained in contact with Muhammad Umar Farooq through telephone calls and social media applications.The agency claimed that several WhatsApp calls took place between a mobile number allegedly used by Jan and Farooq’s Pakistani number. Her number was also allegedly found saved in Farooq’s phonebook.The NIA further claimed that voice notes and photographs of Insha Jan were recovered from data extracted from Farooq’s mobile phone.Defence Cites Six Years’ IncarcerationSeeking bail in the Pulwama terror attack case, Insha Jan’s counsel argued that she had spent more than six years in custody and that the prolonged trial violated her constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21.The defence pointed out that although charges were framed in December 2022, only 55 of the 240 prosecution witnesses had been examined. It argued that the trial could take several more years to conclude.The Insha Jan bail plea also claimed that witnesses examined so far had not directly or indirectly connected her with the alleged offences and that no incriminating material had been recovered from her.Her counsel additionally sought bail on medical grounds, citing various health problems and arguing that she required specialised treatment and a supportive environment outside jail.NIA Opposes Bail Under UAPAThe NIA opposed Insha Jan’s bail plea, arguing that she was facing serious offences and that the statutory restrictions under UAPA Section 43-D(5) prevented her release.The agency submitted that charges had already been framed after the court found prima facie material against her and that the order framing charges had not been challenged.The prosecution also argued that the delay in the NIA Pulwama case could not, by itself, justify bail considering the gravity of the alleged offences.The NIA further expressed concern that releasing the accused could create a possibility of influencing key prosecution witnesses.Court Rejects Bail PleaThe NIA court in Jammu observed that the trial was already underway and that prosecution witnesses were being examined.The court held that the material on record indicated the accused’s alleged involvement in furtherance of the conspiracy and that further corroboration from witnesses yet to be examined remained relevant.It also rejected the argument that the prolonged trial, in the circumstances of the case, was sufficient to grant bail.On the medical grounds raised by the defence, the court observed that the ailments cited did not constitute a life-threatening condition requiring urgent release from custody.“There is sufficient evidence to presume that prima facie, the accusation against the applicant is true,” the court observed while rejecting the Insha Jan bail application.The court ultimately held that, considering the nature and gravity of the alleged offences and the larger interests of the State/UT, Insha Jan could not be released on bail at this stage.Court Directs Medical Care in JailWhile rejecting bail in the Pulwama attack case, the court directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Baramulla, to provide Insha Jan with all necessary medical care.The jail authorities were also directed to submit a compliance report every fortnight regarding her treatment.The court clarified that its observations while deciding the Insha Jan bail plea would not affect the merits of the ongoing trial.
Leave a Reply