Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Nov 9: Division Bench of High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Rajesh Sekri has set-aside the order of NIA court whereby one Jaffer Hussain was discharged and directed Trial Court to frame charge against the respondent and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
This appeal in terms of Section 21 of National Investigation Agency Act 2008 read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed against order, propounded by the court of Special Judge, NIA (3rd Additional Sessions Judge) in case RC-08/2019/NIA/JMU dated 02.11.2019, vide which, respondent has been discharged for offences under Section 120-B read with Section 392 of Ranbir Penal Code and Sections 18, 39 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The case of the appellant /prosecution in the Trial Court was that on 08.03.2019 Police Station, Kishtwar received a source information that some unknown armed terrorists had barged into the rented room of HC Daleep Singh, who happened to be the Incharge of escort party of Deputy Commissioner, Kishtwar and snatched his service weapon i.e. AK-47 rifle along with three magazines and 90 live cartridges at gun point and fled away.
Accordingly, an FIR No. 31 of 2019 dated 08.03.2019 came to be registered by Police Station, Kishtwar for offences under Section 392 RPC, 7/25/30 of Arms Act and Sections 16/18/20/23 of UA(P) Act and investigation started. Subsequently, in compliance to order No. 11011/55/2019/NIA dated 01.11.2019 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the case was assigned to NIA under the provisions of Section 6 of the NIA Act.
On conclusion of the investigation, NIA filed a final report against six accused persons including Osama Bin Javed alias Osama, Haroon Abbas Wani, Zahid Hussain, Tanveer Ahmed Malik, Taraq Hussain Giri and Jaffar Hussain (respondent) and some other accused persons in the Trial Court on 22.05.2021 for the alleged commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B & 392 RPC, 16/18/19/20/23/38/39 & 40 of UA(P) Act and 07/25/30 of Arms Act and further investigation of the case was kept open.
After hearing ASGI Vishal Sharma for the NIA whereas Advocate Intikhab H Shah for the accused, the DB observed, “the admitted position of fact on the record is that respondent was an acquaintance of accused Osama Bin Javed and it is also an admitted fact that Maruti Alto Car of the respondent has been used in the commission of the offence”.
“Respondent in the present case not only failed to inform the police, but also misled, misinformed and misdirected the police agency, purportedly in furtherance of intention to screen the militants. It is significant to underline that respondent not only lied to the MTO, MT clerk and DySP/DAR of DPL, Kishtwar but he also projected a false story and furnished wrong information to his senior officials including Additional Superintendent of Police, Kishtwar and Senior Superintendent of Police Kishtwar”, DB said.
“There is no denying the fact that respondent intentionally furnished wrong information to the police and concocted a false story and his actions led the terrorists to snatch the service rifle i.e. AK-47 along with three magazines and 90 live cartridges from HC-Daleep Singh and escaped afterwards”, the DB further said, adding “the circumstances surrounding the episode are sufficient to indicate that respondent had prior knowledge about the incident of weapon snatching and the conduct of the respondent after the incident gives rise to a grave suspicion that prima facie respondent connived with the militants/accused on the spot to facilitate the commission of the crime”.
“The Trial Court, by reading in between the lines, has erred in assuming that respondent had disclosed incorrect registration number of his vehicle to the police authorities out of fear only. The observation of trial court that respondent must have disclosed wrong registration number of his vehicle for the reason that he might be suspected to be an ally of the categorized terrorists, is totally misconceived”, the DB said.
With these observations, Division Bench set-aside the order of trial court and directed trial court to frame charge against the respondent and proceed with the trial in accordance with law.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
