New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to an alleged ISIS supporter, arrested in a UAPA case for allegedly conspiring to carry out terrorist acts in Jammu & Kashmir, noting that the conventional idea of bail is the rule and jail is the exception does not find any place in the anti-terror law.
A bench headed by Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, in a judgement uploaded on Thursday, said an analysis of the material indicated that the accusation against Jamsheed Zahoor Paul was “prima facie true” and therefore no relief can be given in the case under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
“As per prosecution, weapons were being arranged for perpetuating terror and, therefore, at this stage, testing the case on broad probabilities, there is material to show that there is a prima facie true case against the appellant,” observed the bench, also comprising Justice Manoj Jain, in its order passed on April 24.
“Appellant, being supporter of ideology of ISIS, arranged illegal weapons and was involved in providing other logistic support to its cadres…The appellant seems part of conspiracy and when a full-fledged trial is already underway, we would refrain from embarking upon a mini-trial to dissect each circumstance, threadbare. The appellant was in touch with cadres of ISIS which is sufficient to give insight of his culpable mind,” said the court.
Paul was arrested by the Delhi Police in 2018 when he was 19 years old after information was received that two “radicalized youths of Jammu & Kashmir” had procured arms and ammunition from UP for their cadres for executing some terrorist act in Jammu & Kashmir and would come to Netaji Subhash Park, near Red Fort, to proceed to Kashmir.
In the order, the court observed that the trial court was already conscious of the accused’s fundamental right to speedy trial and was taking up the matter diligently by giving shortest possible dates.
It also noted that the top court has given a decision with respect to the embargo on grant of bail to an accused under UAPA and said that the scope was severely restricted.
“In a recent decision given by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab & Anr, the impact of Section 43D(5) of UAPA was delineated and 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,” the court said.
“At this stage, appellant does not seem to be in any position to wriggle out of the statutory bar contained in proviso of Section 43D (5) of UAPA as there are clear-cut allegations which go on to indicate that accusation against him is prima facie true,” the court added.
Follow on Twitter | Posted by Neha Khan | 
