SRINAGAR: A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jammu has rejected the bail plea of Insha Jan alias Insha Tariq, an accused in the conspiracy behind the 2019 Pulwama terror attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel, holding that sufficient material existed on record to presume that the allegations against her were prima facie true.
Special Judge Prem Sagar, in a 15-page order passed on August 20, held that the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) operated against Jan and prevented her release on bail at this stage.
Jan, a resident of Harkipora village in south Kashmir’s Pulwama district, was arrested along with her father, Peer Tariq Ahmad Shah, on March 3, 2020. She has remained in custody for more than six years and is facing trial in NIA case RC No. 02/2019/NIA/JMU under various provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code, UAPA, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. Charges against her were framed on December 10, 2022.
The case relates to the February 14, 2019 suicide attack on a CRPF convoy in Pulwama, in which 40 personnel were killed. The NIA has alleged that Jan and her father provided shelter, food and logistical support to Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM) terrorists associated with the conspiracy.
According to the prosecution case recorded in the court order, Jan and her father allegedly provided safe shelter to JeM terrorists at their residence and facilitated them with food and other logistical support.
The NIA alleged that the family was introduced to JeM terrorists through their neighbour Mohammad Abbas Rather in May 2018. Pakistani terrorists Muhammad Umar Farooq and Mohammad Kamran Ali allegedly visited the house in June 2018, after which JeM terrorists began visiting the residence regularly with arms and ammunition.
The agency further alleged that in January 2019, Muhammad Umar Farooq, Adil Ahmad Dar and Sameer Ahmad Dar stayed at the house for several days.
The NIA told the court that the video of Adil Ahmad Dar, the suicide bomber whose video went viral after the Pulwama attack, was recorded at Jan’s house on January 28 and 29, 2019. Technical analysis, according to the prosecution, established that Jan was present at the house at the time.
The agency also alleged that Jan remained in contact with Muhammad Umar Farooq through telephone calls and social media applications.
According to the prosecution, several WhatsApp calls took place between a mobile number used by Jan and the Pakistani number of Farooq. Her number was allegedly found saved in Farooq’s phonebook, while several voice notes and photographs of Jan were recovered from data extracted from his mobile phone.
Seeking bail, Jan’s counsel argued that she had been incarcerated for more than six years and that the prolonged trial violated her fundamental right to speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The defence submitted that although charges were framed in December 2022, only a limited number of the 240 prosecution witnesses had been examined and that the trial could take several more years to conclude.
The bail plea also claimed that witnesses examined so far had not directly or indirectly connected Jan with the alleged offences and that no incriminating material had been recovered from her.
The defence further sought bail on medical grounds, stating that prolonged incarceration had resulted in chronic dermatological problems, cervical spondylosis and chronic oculogenic headaches. It argued that she required specialised treatment and a supportive environment outside jail.
The NIA opposed the plea, arguing that Jan was facing grave offences and that the restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA barred her release.
The agency said charges had already been framed after the court found prima facie material against her and that the order framing charges had not been challenged.
The prosecution also argued that delay in trial could not by itself become a ground for bail in a case involving serious offences. It said 55 prosecution witnesses had been examined out of 240 and that two more had been summoned for the next hearing.
The NIA further submitted that there was sufficient material indicating Jan’s involvement and that releasing her at this stage could create a possibility of her influencing key prosecution witnesses.
The court held that the trial was already underway and witnesses were being examined. It observed that the material on record indicated the applicant’s alleged involvement in furtherance of the conspiracy and required corroboration from other witnesses yet to be examined.
The court said that if Jan were released on bail, there was a likelihood that she could influence key witnesses and hamper the process of justice. It rejected the argument that delay in the trial, in the circumstances of the case, was sufficient to justify bail.
The court also rejected the medical grounds cited by the defence, observing that the ailments referred to were not a life-threatening condition warranting urgent relief.
“There is sufficient evidence to presume that prima facie, the accusation against the applicant is true,” the court said while rejecting the bail application.
The court ultimately held that, considering the nature and gravity of the offences and the larger interests of the State/UT, Jan’s bail application could not be allowed at this stage.
The court, however, directed the Superintendent of District Jail, Baramulla, to provide all necessary medical care to Jan and submit a compliance report every fortnight regarding her treatment. It also clarified that observations made while deciding the bail plea would have no bearing on the merits of the main trial.
