The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled in Waheed ur Rehman Parra V/s UT of J & K through Investigating Officer, P/S Counter Intelligence that is simply seeing someone with a member of a terrorist organisation will not be enough to trigger the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A division bench of Justices, led by Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, held that simply because a person was seen with someone with questionable credentials on a few occasions does not imply that that person is either a member of a terrorist organisation or is lending support to one with the intent of furthering its activities.
“Merely being seen in the company of a member of a terrorist organisation without doing anything else is not enough to bring the UAPA Act into play,” the Court said. As a result, the Court granted bail to one Waheed ur Rehman Parra (appellant), who was charged with sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and violations of the United Arab Emirates Penal Code.
The Court also overturned a July 20, 2021 order by the Special Judge, NIA Srinagar, rejecting Parra’s bail application. In the past, a first information report (FIR) had been filed in Police Station Qazigund against one Syed Naveed Mushtaq and others under Sections 18, 19, 20, 38, 39 of the UAPA, as well as Section 7/25 of the Arms Act and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act.
Following that, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the investigation of that case, and the case was re-registered on January 17, 2020, with the appellant being arrested. The appellant applied for bail in the Jammu Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge.
During the pendency of the bail application, the respondents filed a second FIR on the same set of allegations that were the subject of the investigation. The appellant was arrested in the second FIR as soon as he was released on bail. It was claimed that this was done solely for the purpose of illegally and unlawfully detaining the appellant. The appellant’s constitutional rights have been blatantly violated, according to the plea.
The appellant’s counsel, Advocate Sharik Reyaz, argued that because an FIR was filed against him and he was released on bail on the same set of allegations, a second FIR could not be filed against him; however, the trial court ignored this fact when rejecting the appellant’s bail request.
He also argued that in rejecting the appellant’s bail request, the trial court failed to consider the fact that the allegations against the appellant were not made out in the charge sheet or the evidence gathered during the investigation, and that he had already been granted bail based on the same allegations.
He also argued that in rejecting the appellant’s bail request, the trial court failed to consider the fact that the allegations against the appellant were not made out in the charge sheet or the evidence gathered during the investigation, and that he had already been granted bail based on the same allegations.
He claimed that the second FIR filed at CIK Srinagar was solely for the purpose of overturning the bail granted by the Special Judge of the NIA Court in Jammu in the previous FIR.
The High Court stated that the trial court failed to appreciate the situation in its entirety and dismissed the appellant’s bail application after being swayed by the fact that charges had been filed against him and, therefore, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the allegations made in the FIR do not make out a prima facie case.
The Court also pointed out that the prosecution was relying on evidence gathered during the investigation, but that the evidence only pointed to the appellant being seen in the company of one Yousaf Gadoora, an alleged overground worker of a proscribed terrorist organisation.
“Prima facie,” the Court said, “we could not find any allegation in the final report that shows appellant’s association with any terrorist organisation, let alone with an intent to further its activities.” The Court noted that there was no evidence on the record that the appellant aided or abetted any terrorist organisation with the intent of furthering its activities.
“Simply because the appellant has been seen with a person with questionable credentials on some occasions cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellant is either a member of a terrorist organisation or is lending support to such an organisation with the intent to further its activities,” the decision stated.
Furthermore, the Court followed the Supreme Court’s recent directions in the sedition case, in which the top court ordered that all pending trials, appeals, and proceedings involving Section 124A of the IPC be put on hold. As a result, the Court granted the appeal and ordered the appellant’s release from the Central Jail in Srinagar, provided he is not involved in any other case.