A Court here rejected the bail application of Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) youth wing president Waheed Parra.
After hearing prosecution and defence counsel, the Special Court designated under NIA Act presided over by Ashwani Kumar Sharma said that the accused does not deserve the concession of bail at this stage.
Court observed that since the accused is “influential person” having won the elections of District Development Council that too “during his confinement.”
“Thus, if the accused is enlarged on bail at this stage, there are chances of winning/tampering with prosecution witness and evidence,” court observed.
Court added that it is a settled position of law that if personal liberty of accused and security of the state are pitted, it is security of state that shall prevail.
Court added that prima facie accused is involved in serious and heinous offences under the provisions of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and waging war against the UT of J&K and “if enlarged on bail, the unity, integrity, security and sovereignty of the country will be endangered.”
Court observed that in the present case the investigation is at its nascent stage and the investigating agency is yet to collect the evidence against the accused though the evidence so far collected by the investigating agency in the case against the accused in the case diary file prima-facie indicates the involvement of the accused in the commission of the offences leveled against him.
The court added that as contended by the defence counsel that the accused has won the DDC elections from his constituency while he was in custody as such is entitled to bail, “does not deserve any consideration.”
“Because it means that the petitioner is highly influential person who has won the DDC elections during his confinement in the jail and if he is enlarged on bail there are full chances of tampering/winning over with the evidence of the prosecution being as influential person and no witness would come against him,” court observed.
Court said that the allegations against the petitioner are so grave, serious and heinous in nature that if a balance is to be struck viz-a-viz the personal liberty and security, the interests and the security of the UT shall prevail.
Court said that the argument of defence counsel that case been lodged solely on the basis of political vendetta by the rival political parties, as the petitioner is a budding politician is also not available at this stage, as such, is rejected out rightly.
“A perusal of the case diary file transpires that in the garb of a politician the petitioner had been playing an active role in funding the militants and had also been demanding arms and ammunition against payment by misusing his position and that of his PSOs,” court observed.
Court added that politician like the accused does not have the license to indulge themselves in the Unlawful Activities by funding and aiding the terrorists in the colour of his position by making payment of funds to them and by arranging of the appointments of kith and kin of the terrorists in different government departments in the garb of holding some position in the ruling political party PDP.
“The petitioner has misused his position by taking undue advantage of his status and positions. The bank accounts of the petitioner transpires huge transactions, from where the same has come, it is not discernible, though the matter is still under investigation and the facts would come to limelight with the passage of time after the conclusion of the investigation,” court said.
“The bail application is rejected,” the court said.