SRINAGAR: The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has opposed the bail plea of separatist leader Nayeem Ahmad Khan in a case related to alleged terror funding under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) before the Delhi High Court.
Khan has been in judicial custody since August 14, 2017, and has been accused by the NIA of “creating unrest” in the Kashmir valley. He was arrested on July 24, 2017, and charges for various offences under the Indian Penal Code, including sedition and UAPA, were framed against him by a special NIA court on March 16 last year.
The NIA has submitted that evidence collected in the case clearly establishes a prima facie case against Khan and that he was involved in terrorist and funding activities. Certain letters were found during search and seizure from Khan’s residence showing that he was getting students admitted for MBBS courses in Pakistan, according to the agency.
The NIA has alleged that this shows Khan’s involvement in terror funding out of commission earned from getting students admitted to MBBS courses in Pakistan. Various videos have also been relied upon by the NIA to allege that Khan is seen leading a “pro-ISIS rally” and “visiting areas where terrorists were killed.” The NIA has stated that the videos have conversations by Khan about funding from Hizbul Mujahideen.
The matter will be heard on May 03 by a division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Talwant Singh. The case alleges that there was a larger criminal conspiracy for causing disruption in the Kashmir valley by way of “pelting stones on the security forces, systematically burning of schools, damage to public property, and for waging war against India.” The case has been registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and the UAPA.
While denying him bail, the special NIA judge had noted that a detailed scrutiny of evidence and statements of various witnesses was done at the time of framing of charges and it was concluded that there is sufficient evidence available raising “grave suspicion” regarding Khan’s involvement. (LiveLaw)
