Excelsior Correspondent
Srinagar, July 16: High Court today quashed the bail granted by the trial court to an accused under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and directed him to surrender before the Special Court formed under National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act.
The accused Hilal Ahmad Parray was admitted to bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate Banidpora for commission of offences under UA(P)A which has been challenged by the prosecution before the High Court on the ground that the trial court has no jurisdiction to hear the cases under UA(P) Act and the that Special Court under NIA Act is having the jurisdiction.
Justice Sanjay Dhar while setting aside the bail order of accused-Parray said the aspect of the matter which has been totally ignored by the Magistrate while granting bail to the respondent-Parray is that he was booked under UAPA. “Admittedly, the respondent has been booked not only for offences under Section 13 of the UA (P) Act but he has also been booked for offences under Section 18 and 19, which fall under Chapter IV of the said Act”, High Court said.
Justice Dhar said, if the Court finds that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusation against a person, who has been booked for offences punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the said Act, is prima facie true, he cannot be released on bail.
The Magistrate court added has not discussed at all as to what are the allegations against the respondent-Parray and what is the material in support thereof and has not discussed as to on what basis he has come to the conclusion that the allegations against the respondent-Parray do not appear to be true.
“Without undertaking such an exercise, the grant of bail by the Magistrate to the respondent becomes unsustainable in the eyes of law. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora, is set aside. The respondent is directed to surrender before the Special Court where he is stated to be facing trial and apply for fresh bail,” Court concluded.
Court said that it is only the Special Court or in the absence of a Special Court, a Sessions Court exercising powers of a Special Court, which can entertain and grant/refuse bail to a person accused of an offence under the provisions of UA(P) Act, which finds mention in the Schedule to NIA Act.
Court recorded that the approach adopted by the trial Magistrate while dealing with the case to which he was not having jurisdiction is palpably wrong and contrary to law, as he has ignored the provisions contained in Section 22(2)(ii) of the NIA Act, which clearly provides that reference to “Agency” in sub-section (1) of Section 13 shall be construed as a reference to the “investigation agency of the State Government.
Follow our WhatsApp channel