JAMMU, August 22: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of Insha Jan, an alleged conspirator in the 2019 Pulwama suicide attack that claimed the lives of 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel. The court cited sufficient evidence to presume that the accusations against her are prima facie true.
Information was available with The Chenab Times that Special Judge Prem Sagar, in a 15-page order delivered on August 20, stated that the provisions of Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) prevent the accused from being released on bail at this stage of the proceedings.
Insha Jan, a resident of Harkipora village in Pulwama district of South Kashmir, was arrested on March 3, 2020, along with her father, Peer Tariq Ahmad Shah. She is currently facing trial under various charges, including the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), UAPA, the Arms Act, and the Explosive Substances Act. The court had framed charges against her on December 10, 2022.
According to the NIA’s chargesheet, Jan was allegedly involved in the terror conspiracy and maintained continuous contact with Pakistani militant Muhammad Umar Farooq. Farooq, along with another Pakistani militant Mohd Kamran Ali, is reported to have been involved in planning the Pulwama attack before both were neutralized in separate encounters with security forces.
The prosecution alleges that Jan provided food, shelter, and other logistical support to these militants and other operatives of the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM). Furthermore, a viral video of the suicide bomber Adil Ahmad Dar, which gained prominence after the February 14, 2019, attack, was allegedly recorded at her residence on January 28 and 29 of that year.
The court’s decision followed a thorough consideration of arguments presented by both the defence and the NIA. The defence team primarily emphasized Jan’s prolonged incarceration, alleged delays in the trial, and her health condition. In contrast, the NIA opposed the bail plea, highlighting the gravity of the charges, the collected evidence, and the statutory restrictions imposed by Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.
The defence contended that Jan had been in custody for over six years and argued that the protracted nature of the trial rendered her continued detention unjustified. They submitted that out of a total of 240 witnesses, 49 had been examined at the relevant stage. The defence expressed concern that, at the current pace, the trial could extend for several more years.
It was also argued by the defence that the witnesses examined so far had not directly or indirectly linked the applicant to the commission of the alleged offences, and no incriminating material had been recovered from her possession. Additionally, the defence cited her deteriorating health, claiming she suffered from chronic dermatological issues, cervical spondylosis, and persistent headaches, necessitating specialized medical treatment.
Jan had also asserted that her implication in the case was entirely false and without any reasonable grounds. In its counter-argument, the NIA maintained that the bail application was devoid of merit and misconceived both factually and legally. The agency described the accused as a highly motivated terror associate involved in a grave and serious offense, executed in a well-planned manner, indicating maturity of mind rather than innocence.
The NIA further stated that Jan, with her father, had facilitated safe shelter for JeM militants at their residence and provided them with food and other logistical support. The family’s introduction to JeM militants occurred in May 2018 through a neighbor. Subsequently, JeM militants reportedly visited their home regularly with arms and ammunition. In January 2019, Pakistani militants Farooq and Dar, along with Sameer Ahmad Dar, stayed at her house for several days, bringing sophisticated arms and ammunition, the agency told the court.
The NIA also presented evidence of communications between Jan and Farooq, including WhatsApp calls, voice notes, and photographs recovered from his mobile phone after his death. The court placed significant reliance on Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which stipulates that an accused in custody under Chapters IV and VI of the Act cannot be released on bail if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true after reviewing the case diary or chargesheet.
The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence to presume the accusation against the applicant was true, thereby rejecting her bail application. Delay in the trial was not considered a sufficient ground for bail in these circumstances. The court noted that the trial was ongoing and witnesses were being examined, expressing concern that releasing the applicant might allow her to influence key witnesses, thereby hampering the justice process.
Regarding her medical condition, the court determined it did not warrant bail, stating that her ailment was not life-threatening. However, the judge directed jail authorities to ensure she receives all necessary medical care. The court also clarified that the observations made during the bail plea decision would not prejudice the merits of the main criminal trial.
The Chenab Times News Desk