CRL A(D) No. 34 of 2022 · High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh
Case at a glance
- Bench
- PUNEET GUPTA
Outcome
Disposed of
Appeal along with connected application is disposed of accordingly
Provisions considered
- NIA Act, 2008 s. 21
- Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 ss. 10, 13, 39
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The case of the appellant is that an FIR bearing no.1/2007 was lodged in Police Station City Jammu against the appellant under Section 124-A, 147 RPC. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.05.2022 has granted bail in FIR No.01/2007 by P/S City…
- Para 55. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned senior counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal in hand accordingly along with connected applications, if any, by providing liberty to the appellant to approach the NIA court by…
- Para 88. Appeal along with connected application is disposed of accordingly. (Puneet Gupta) Judge ) (Tashi Rabstan) Judge Jammu: 03.05.2023 Raj Kumar
Judgment
Through :- Mr. P N Raina, Senior Advocate with Ms. Deeksha Handoo, Advocate. V/s UT of J&K ….Respondent(s) Through :- Ms. Monika Kohli, Sr. AAG with Mr. Virender Dev Singh, Advocate. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TASHI RABSTAN, JUDGE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PUNEET GUPTA, JUDGE ORDER 03.05.2023
Present appeal has been filed under Section 21 of NIA Act, 2008 against order dated 09.07.2022, whereby prayer for bail in case FIR No.27/2022 dated 06.05.2022 of Police Station Pir Mitha Jammu registered under Sections 10, 13 & 39 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, has been rejected by the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Jammu (Designated Court under NIA Act).
The case of the appellant is that an FIR bearing no.1/2007 was lodged in Police Station City Jammu against the appellant under Section 124-A, 147 RPC. Learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge vide order dated 21.05.2022 has granted bail in FIR No.01/2007 by P/S City Jammu registered under Sections 124-A, 147 RPC. However, Police Station, Pir Mitha lodged another FIR bearing no.27/2022 under Sections 10/13/39 of UAPA against the appellant. The appellant accordingly moved an application seeking bail. However, the same was rejected. 2 Crl A(D) No.34/2022
It is submitted by learned senior counsel for the appellant that after the rejection order in the bail application is passed, there have been subsequent developments. Also, it is the submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant that statement of two witnesses namely Mohd. Umar and Masab have also been recorded and the charges also been framed against the appellant.
Learned senior counsel for the appellant further submits that in view of subsequent developments, he may be permitted to approach the NIA court by way of filing a fresh bail application and the NIA court may be directed to consider and decide the bail application within certain timeframe.
In view of the aforesaid submissions made by learned senior counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the appeal in hand accordingly along with connected applications, if any, by providing liberty to the appellant to approach the NIA court by way of filing a fresh bail application.
The NIA court, on receipt of such application, shall consider and decide the bail application on its own merits under rules, preferably, within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of such application.
It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case of the appellant.
Operative part
Appeal along with connected application is disposed of accordingly. (Puneet Gupta) Judge ) (Tashi Rabstan) Judge Jammu: 03.05.2023 Raj Kumar
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Appeal along with connected application is disposed of accordingly
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
NIA Act, 2008 — s. 21; Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — ss. 10, 13, 39.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.