Posted by New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to an alleged ISIS supporter arrested under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly conspiring to carry out terrorist acts in Jammu and Kashmir, saying that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence that bail is the rule and jail is the exception does not find any place in an UAPA case.
Material indicates accusation against appellant was prima facie true: High Court
A bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain said that an analysis of the material indicated that the accusation against appellant Jamsheed Zahoor Paul, who had challenged an order of the trial court rejecting his bail plea, was “prima facie true” and therefore he cannot be granted relief in the case under the UAPA.
The court observed that weapons were being arranged for perpetuating terror as per prosecution and, therefore, at this stage, testing the case on broad probabilities, there is material to show that there is a prima facie true case against appellant Paul.
Appellant was in touch with cadres of ISIS which is sufficient to give insight of his culpable mind: High Court
The High Court further said that Paul, being supporter of ideology of ISIS, arranged illegal weapons and he was involved in providing other logistic support to its cadres and seems part of conspiracy and “when a full-fledged trial is already underway, we would refrain from embarking upon a mini-trial to dissect each circumstance, threadbare. The appellant was in touch with cadres of ISIS which is sufficient to give insight of his culpable mind.”
Paul was arrested by Delhi Police in 2018
Paul was arrested by the Delhi Police in 2018, when he was 19-year-old, after the Special Cell received an information that two persons, including Paul, were radicalized youths of Jammu and Kashmir having allegiance to banned terrorist organization and they had procured arms and ammunition from Uttar Pradesh for their cadres for executing some terrorist act in Jammu and Kashmir and would come at Netaji Subhash Park, near Red Fort in Delhi to proceed to Kashmir.
Initially First Information Report (FIR) had been registered under section 25 of Arms Act and after detailed investigation and on the basis of the incriminating material collected during investigation, section 18 and 20 of UAPA were added.
Exercise of general power to grant bail under UAPA is severely restrictive in scope: High Court
The High Court noted that the Supreme Court has given a decision with respect to the embargo on grant of bail to an accused facing charges under UAPA and said that the scope was severely restricted.
“In a recent decision given by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2024, the impact of section 43D(5) of UAPA was delineated and it was observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence – bail is the rule and jail is the exception – does not find any place in UAPA. It further observed that exercise of general power to grant bail under UAPA is severely restrictive in scope. It went on to hold that in view of said statutory bar contained under Section 43D (5) of UAPA, if the offences fall under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of UAPA and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true, bail must be rejected as a rule,” the High Court said.
The High Court, while dismissing the appeal of Paul, further said that at this stage “Appellant does not seem to be in any position to wriggle out of the statutory bar contained in proviso of Section 43D (5) of UAPA as there are clear-cut allegations which go on to indicate that accusation against him is prima facie true.” the High Court said while rejecting Paul’s bail plea.