Merely spotting accused with member of terrorist organization will not attract UAPA: Jammu and Kashmir High Court

Spotting an individual with a member of a terrorist organization will not be sufficient to attract the provisions of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh recently ruled [Waheed ur Rehman Parra V/s UT of J&K through Investigating Officer, P/S Counter Intelligence]. .A division bench of Justices comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul, held that simply because a person was seen on some occasions with a person of doubtful credentials, cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that such a person is either a member of a terrorist organization or is lending support to such organization with an intention to further its activities."Merely the accused having been seen in the company of a member of a terrorist organization without doing anything more is not enough to attract the applicability of UAPA Act," the Court held. The Court, therefore, granted bail to one Waheed ur Rehman Parra (appellant) charged for sedition under Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code and for offences under the UAPA. .The Court also set aside the order dated July 20, 2021 passed by the Special Judge, NIA Srinagar by which Parra's bail was rejected..By way of background, a first information report (FIR) had been registered against one Syed Naveed Mushtaq and others in Police Station Qazigund under Sections 18, 19, 20, 38, 39 of UAPA read with Section 7/25 Arms Act and Section 3/4 of Explosive Substances Act. Subsequently, the investigation of that case was taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the case was re-registered on January 17, 2020 and in the said case, the appellant was arrested.The appellant filed an application for bail before the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu. However, during the pendency of the bail application, the respondents, on same set of allegations, which were subject matter of investigation, registered a second FIR.As soon as the appellant was released on bail, he was arrested in the second FIR. .This was done only with a view to detain the appellant illegally and unlawfully, it was contended. The constitutional guarantees available to the appellant have been violated with impunity, the plea said. Counsel for the appellant Sharik Reyaz, Advocate argued that once an FIR was registered against the appellant wherein he was released on bail, on same set of allegations, the second FIR could not have been registered against him; but this aspect was ignored by the trial court while rejecting bail plea of the appellant..He further argued that while rejecting bail plea of the appellant, the trial court had not taken into consideration the fact that from the charge-sheet as well as the evidence collected during the investigation, the accusations were not made out against the appellant and that on the same allegations, he had already been granted bail.The second FIR registered at Police Station, CIK Srinagar was done only with a view to defeat the bail granted by the Special Judge, NIA Court, Jammu in previous FIR, he submitted..The High Court said that the trial court failed to appreciated the matter in its true perspective and dismissed the bail application of the appellant being influenced by the fact that charges were framed against the appellant 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. .Pertinently, the Court noted that the prosecution was relying upon the evidence collected during the investigation but the evidence only pointed to the appellant having been seen in the company of one Yousaf Gadoora, an alleged over ground worker of a proscribed terrorist organization. "Prima facie, we could not find any allegation in the final report which shows the association of appellant with any terrorist organization, that too, with an intention to further its activities," the Court said..The Court observed that there was nothing on record to demonstrate that the appellant supported any terrorist organization with an intention to further activities of such organization. "Simply because the appellant has been seen on some occasion with a person with doubtful credentials cannot itself lead to the conclusion that the appellant is either a member of a terrorist organization or is lending support to such organization with an intention to further its activities," the judgment stated. Further, the Court also followed the recent directions issued by the Supreme Court in the sedition case in which the top court had ordered that all the pending trials, appeals and proceedings with regard Section 124A of IPC shall be kept in abeyance..Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed Superintendent of Central Jail, Srinagar to release the appellant provided he is not involved in any other case..[Read Judgment]