Jammu, August 22: A special court of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in Jammu has rejected the bail application of an accused in the 2019 Pulwama terrorist attack.
The court dismissed the bail plea of Insha Jan, also known as Insha Tariq, who is implicated in the suicide bombing that claimed the lives of 40 CRPF personnel.
Officials stated that the special NIA court found sufficient evidence indicating that the charges against her are prima facie valid.
Special Judge Prem Sagar, in a 15-page order issued on August 20, noted that the legal restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) apply to the accused, preventing her release on bail at this stage.
Insha Jan, a resident of Haripora village in Pulwama district, was arrested alongside her father, Peer Tariq Ahmed Shah, on March 3, 2020. She faces charges under the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), UAPA, the Arms Act, and the Explosive Substances Act, with the trial currently ongoing. The court framed charges against her on December 10, 2022.
According to the NIA’s charge sheet, she was allegedly involved in a terrorist conspiracy and maintained regular contact with Pakistani terrorist Mohammad Umar Farooq, who, along with another Pakistani terrorist, Mohammad Kamran Ali, planned the Pulwama attack. Both were subsequently killed in separate encounters with security forces.
She is also accused of providing food, shelter, and logistical support to these terrorists and other members of Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM).
Additionally, a viral video of the suicide bomber, Adil Ahmed Dar, which circulated after the February 14, 2019 attack, was reportedly recorded at her home on January 28 and 29.
The court delivered its ruling after considering arguments from both the defense and the NIA. The defense primarily relied on the prolonged detention of the accused, alleged delays in the trial, and her health condition. In contrast, the NIA opposed the bail plea, citing the severity of the charges, evidence collected during the investigation, and the restrictions imposed by UAPA Section 43-D(5).
The defense argued that the accused has been in custody for over six years and that her prolonged detention is unjust due to the lengthy trial process. They noted that out of 240 witnesses, only 49 prosecution witnesses have been examined, suggesting that the trial could extend for several more years at the current pace.
They also claimed that the witnesses examined did not directly or indirectly link the applicant to the crimes, and no incriminating material was recovered from her.
The defense highlighted her health issues, stating that she suffers from chronic skin problems, cervical spondylosis, and persistent headaches, requiring specialized medical treatment.
The accused maintained that her involvement in the case is entirely fabricated and lacks any legitimate basis.
–
Leave a Comment