New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to an alleged ISIS supporter arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly conspiring to carry out terrorist acts in Jammu and Kashmir. The court emphasized that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence, where bail is the rule and jail is the exception, does not apply to UAPA cases.

A bench comprising Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain stated that an analysis of the material indicated that the accusation against the appellant, Jamsheed Zahoor Paul, who had challenged the trial court's order rejecting his bail plea, was "prima facie true." Therefore, he could not be granted relief in the case under the UAPA.

The court observed that weapons were being arranged for perpetuating terror, as per the prosecution. Therefore, at this stage, there is material to show that there is a prima facie true case against appellant Paul.

Further, the High Court noted that Paul, a supporter of the ideology of ISIS, was involved in arranging illegal weapons and providing logistic support to its cadres, and seemed to be part of a conspiracy. The court refrained from embarking upon a mini-trial to dissect each circumstance, stating that the appellant was in touch with ISIS cadres, which was sufficient to indicate his culpable mind.

Paul was arrested by the Delhi Police in 2018, when he was 19 years old, after the Special Cell received information that he and another person were radicalized youths from Jammu and Kashmir with allegiance to the banned terrorist organization. It was alleged that they had procured arms and ammunition from Uttar Pradesh for executing a terrorist act in Jammu and Kashmir and would proceed to Kashmir from Netaji Subhash Park, near Red Fort in Delhi.

Initially, an FIR was registered under section 25 of the Arms Act. After detailed investigation and on the basis of the incriminating material collected during the investigation, sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA were added.

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court has severely restricted the scope of bail under UAPA.

"In a recent decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. 2024, the impact of section 43D(5) of UAPA was delineated. It was observed that the conventional idea in bail jurisprudence – bail is the rule and jail is the exception – does not find any place in UAPA. It further observed that exercise of general power to grant bail under UAPA is severely restrictive in scope. It went on to hold that in view of the statutory bar contained under Section 43D (5) of UAPA, if the offences fall under Chapter IV and/or Chapter VI of UAPA and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true, bail must be rejected as a rule," the High Court said.

Therefore, the High Court, while dismissing Paul's appeal, stated that he does not seem to be in a position to obtain bail, as there are clear-cut allegations which indicate that the accusation against him is prima facie true.

Tragic Incident Unfolds: Two Brothers Found Dead Due to Starvation in Goa Residence

Shiv Khera Seeks Supreme Court Direction: NOTA to be Treated as "Fictional Candidate"

Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti Urge Election Commission Not to Postpone Anantnag-Rajouri Polls