Pharmacist charged under UAPA gets bail, court says falsely implicated

Jammu, 28-Aug-2020

In a significant judgment, a court in Jammu has granted bail to a pharmacist after observing that he was falsely implicated in a militancy related case. The court made out that anti-terror laws, UAPA, were not applicable to him. While granting bail, Sunit Gupta, Special Judge under Unlawful Activities (Prevention Act), noted the court could not find a single witness or statement which can be held against Zahoor Ahmed for his alleged links to militancy. "The court could not find a single witness whose statements were recorded under section 161 or 164 CrPC who have uttered even a single word against the accused Zahoor Ahmed," the judge observed. Ahmad, a junior pharmacist with the government, lives in a remote Marwah area of Kishtwar. He was arrested in January this year after police station Dachhan charged him of supporting Hizbul Mujahideen and Jehangir Saroori, Kashmir's oldest surviving militant. Saroori, a resident of Kishtwar, has been evading arrest since 1990. The police had accused Ahmad and nine others of being overground workers of HM and providing information about security forces to militants to carry out attacks on them, besides raising funds for Saroori. Police had submitted a chargesheet in court against Ahmad and others under several sections of UA(P) Act. In a separate case that was filed by Kishtwar police station against him in 2019, he was accused of providing medicine to Saroori and three others on the instant of one Akther Hussain, resident of Kishtwar. Judge Gupta while reprimanding the police investigation officer said he did not find any evidence against the accused. In fact, he said, the officer had managed to annex a photostat copy of a statement of one witness namely Akhter Hussain which was recorded under section 164 CrPc in some other case and attached with this case. �With the strength of the said copy of the statement, they made a successful attempt to falsely implicate the accused Zahoor Ahmed and even as per the statement; the accused is not genuinely found to be involved in any such activity which may be said to be an offence under UA(P) Act,'' the court added. The court further observed Ahmed cannot be said to be involved in aiding, harbouring or being part of the terrorist organisation. As far as he was supposed to be in possession of some medicines, the court stated even if he was intending to deliver some medicine even to the terrorist, he cannot be said to have been involved in any of the offence under UA(P) Act as such rigorous of the provisions of section 43-D() UA(P) Act would not apply in the present case. With these observations, the accused was granted bail subject to furnishing the surety bond or Rs.25000. The court directed the superintendent of Central Jail, Jammu to release the accused from custody.