By PTI
SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh on Wednesday granted bail to PDP chief Waheed Para, who was arrested by the NIA in a terror conspiracy case in November 2020.
While granting bail to Para in opposition to a surety of Rs 1 lakh, a division bench of the High Court comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice V C Koul laid down a number of situations on the PDP chief.
The court docket directed Para to current himself earlier than the investigating officer as and when required to, give up his passport to the investigating officer of the case and never depart the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir with out the prior permission of the trial court docket.
Para, maybe, has turn out to be the primary particular person to profit from the Supreme Court placing on maintain trial of circumstances below part 124 A (sedition).
The division bench listed the apex court docket ruling as one of many mitigating components whereas permitting Para’s enchantment for bail.
“Regarding the sedition charges under Section 124-A IPC, the issue is governed by the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Vombatkere vs. Union of India, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 470, whereby the Supreme Court has directed that all the pending trials, appeals and proceedings with respect to the charge framed under Section 124-A of IPC shall be kept in abeyance,” the court docket noticed.
The division bench mentioned preserving in view the totality of circumstances and the dialogue made hereinabove, “We are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly.”
“Consequently, order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the Special Judge, NIA Srinagar is set aside and the appellant is admitted to bail in connection with FIR No.31/2020 registered in Police 15 Crl A(D) No.15/2021 Station, CIK Srinagar,” the court docket order mentioned.
“The Superintendent, Central Jail, Srinagar, is directed to release the appellant, provided he is not involved in any other case, after the appellant furnishes before him a personal bond of rupees one lac with a surety of the like amount,” it mentioned.
The court docket noticed that Para had not been charged below part 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
“In the moment case, the appellant isn’t charged with Section 15 of UAPA Act and, due to this fact, the reverse burden provision contained in Section 43-E of the UAPA Act isn’t attracted.
When we view the moment case within the mild of settled authorized place, we discover that the trial Court has not exercised the discretion in consonance with the settled authorized rules on grant or refusal of the bail,” the court docket mentioned.
“As is rightly contended by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant is charged under Section 18 of UAPA Act read with Sections 120-B and 121-A IPC, but no material or evidence is brought on record by the prosecution to sustain the charge,” the bench added.
The court docket additionally mentioned that considered from any angle, the proof assembled by the investigating company and relied upon by the prosecution to prosecute the appellant even when accepted as it’s with none denial or rebuttal by the appellant, isn’t such on the idea of which the Court can formulate an opinion that the allegations proved through the investigation are prima facie true.
“The evidence as is gathered by the prosecution is too sketchy to be believed prima facie true, that too, with a view to deny bail to the appellant. The gravamen of allegation against the appellant is that he was hobnobbing with a member of a terrorist organisation with a view to further his political aspirations. The appellant is shown to be a member of mainstream political party i.e Peoples Democratic Party which has remained in power in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir,” it added.
