New Delhi: Two persons accused of financing Lashkar-e-Taiba offshoot The Resistance Front (TRF), which had claimed responsibility for the Pahalgam terror attack, were granted default bail after the National Investigation Agency (NIA) failed to file a chargesheet in 90 days.
The default bail was granted Thursday to Srinagar resident Yasir Hayat, while Shafat Wani, a Handwara resident, got it on Saturday.
The Jammu court’s decision came days after it rejected NIA’s plea to extend the detention of Hayat from 110 days and Wani from 155 days to 180 days on Monday. The counter-terrorism agency had moved plea to extend their custody under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA. The judge had cited absence of specific reasoning as well repetitions in grounds for extension in applications for turning down the NIA request.
While Shafat was arrested by the Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) Police on 8 April, Hayat was taken into custody on 23 May by the NIA, which took over the probe into the funding related to the TRF, which initially took responsibility for the attack in Pahalgam on 22 April before withdrawing it in the face of widespread condemnation.
Wani, a Handwara resident, was booked and arrested by the police on the charge of receiving funds from TRF and propagating its ideologies and anti-national activities in Handwara. The NIA then took over his custody for investigation. Subsequently, the agency also arrested Hayat on 23 May on the charge of arranging funds for TRF.
Meanwhile, the court has imposed 15 restrictions on Hayat, including a ban on the use of any encrypted platform. The Srinagar resident has also been ordered to inform the Station House Officer (SHO) of the nearest police and the investigating officer of the case about the IMEI number of the mobile phone he would be using. No other mobile phone.can be used, it added.
“It is settled position of law that after the expiry of the period of remand beyond 90 days given under Section 43 (D) (2) (b) of the UAPA an indefeasible and statutory right accrues to the accused for seeking his admission on bail even if the offences under which the accused is involved is/are very heinous in nature,” special NIA judge Sandeep Gandotra observed in the order passed Thursday.
“The court is under statutory obligations to follow the dictum laid down by law and the accused is entitled to bail as matter of right, if the investigation is not completed within stipulated period of remand given by the court beyond 90 days and the challan is not produced by the investigating agency against the accused.”
On 8 September, the judge rejected NIA’s plea in which it sought extension of detention period for up to 180 days for both Hayat and Wani, citing voluminous recovery data from their phones and for analysis of numbers that emerged during the investigation process conducted so far.
“That CDRs (Call Detail Records) of new numbers found from analysis of devices of Wani and Hayat which are linked with the instant case are yet to be called and analysed. That their suspected associates are absconding and NIA is making efforts to trace and apprehend them and confront the subject accused. Lastly, it is prayed that the detention period of Hayat may be extended from 110 days to 180 days,” it contended.
Incriminating materials, such as details related to bank accounts, surfaced during the investigation carried out during the extended detention period of 20 days, the NIA submitted, adding that investigators need more time to corroborate the findings from the phones with other sources.
The counsel for Hayat argued that the agency could not present any new evidence against his client, as their case was confined to a single allegation: that he had initially been remanded for allegedly providing Rs 2 lakh to Wani.
The court rejected the NIA’s plea saying that its application seeking extension of detention under Section 43D of the UAPA did not fulfil the condition that specific reasoning has to be given for extension of remand and custody.
In the case of Wani, the court also observed that the grounds to seek extension were repetitive in applications filed by the NIA. “It is pertinent to mention here that the grounds on which the earlier two extensions were given to CIO are the same which are mentioned in this application i.e. mobile scrutiny report of accused is being analysed; more bank accounts are being scrutinized and after completion of investigation prosecution sanction u/s 45 of UAPA has to be obtained,” the judge observed.
It also pulled up the agency for what it called an investigation going at a “snail’s pace” in response to a submission made by the investigating officer that a letter was sent to eight airlines on 29 August to seek travel details of the accused.
“..one fails to understand why the IO has written a letter to airlines only a week back when the accused is already in custody for 110 days,” the judge had said in order rejecting NIA’s request to extend Hayat’s custody.
(Edited by Tony Rai)