Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Man Booked Under UAPA For Allegedly Planning Terror Activities, Bomb Blasts
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man, Mohd. Amir Javed, booked under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, for allegedly planning terror activities in the country. A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal said that there was a reasonable possibility that Javed was one of the links in the network of people who were cognizant of the plan to trigger...
The Delhi High Court has denied bail to a man, Mohd. Amir Javed, booked under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, for allegedly planning terror activities in the country.
A division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal said that there was a reasonable possibility that Javed was one of the links in the network of people who were cognizant of the plan to trigger terrorist activity by using bombs and explosives and causing loss of life.
“The fact that he was the weakest link or a substantial link is an issue which would be proven through trial by the prosecution. At the stage when the accused would be required for the purposes of framing of charges, this Court is of the opinion that he should not be released on bail,” the court said.
The bench upheld the trial court order passed on May 18 denying him regular bail and dismissed his appeal challenging the said order.
The FIR was registered by Delhi Police’s Special Cell in 2021 alleging that a deep rooted conspiracy was hatched by the terror module with its operatives in India to carry out various blasts.
Javed was arrested in the case on September 14, 2021, and completed about 20 months in custody when his appeal was filed earlier this year. It is his case that he was not released for any period in the interim.
It was the prosecution’s case that Javed participated in a conspiracy to engineer IED bomb blasts in India as a part of the terror activities. Judgment in the matter was reserved on August 07.
“Therefore, having considered the charge-sheet, the totality of the material based on broad probability regarding the involvement of the accused, the documents put forward by the investigating agency, as they were, and in addition pursuant to a surface analysis of probative value, this Court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the appellant is prima facie true,” the bench said.
The court said that “even a surface analysis” of the evidence presented by the prosecution would reveal that Javed was primarily charged for conspiracy alongwith other co-accused for possession of IEDs and other arms and ammunition including grenades and pistols for the alleged terror activities.
“While the initial investigation was triggered having received inputs from sources that a terrorist module was trying to execute serial IED blasts in India, pursuant to extensive investigation carried out in multiple States, on the basis of the said information, conspiracy was unearthed which involved a number of people allegedly planning to execute series of terrorist attacks including in Delhi, on behalf of certain organizations,” the court noted.
Furthermore, the bench also noted that the statement of a witness recorded before the Magistrate corroborated the fact that a consignment containing arms and explosives being kept in a bag at Javed’s house was given back to a co-accused who then took it to Prayagraj.
“It is evident in the instant case put forward by the investigating agency, that there was a large scale conspiracy involving various persons acting for terror modules to engineer bomb blasts in India. The appellant was an integral part of the recovery of arms and explosives. This, prima facie, cannot be said to exculpate the accused/appellant at this stage for the purpose of bail,” the court said.
Advocates Kartik Venu, Nitika Khaitan and Priya Vats appeared for the appeallant.
APP Laksh Khanna appeared for the State.
Case Title: MOHD. AMIR JAVED v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 848