Delhi HC Grants Bail To UAPA Accused Who Allegedly Transferred Funds Linked To Lashkar-E-Taiba Activities
The Delhi High Court granted bail under Section 43D (5) of the UAPA to an accused who was arrested for allegedly transferring funds linked to Lashkar-E-Taiba Activities.
The Court set aside the order of the Special NIA Court denying bail to the accused. The Court noted the incarceration of the accused and the lack of evidence to show that he knowingly participated in activities associated with LeT.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma noted that the Appellant had undergone incarceration for over four years and held, “In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Appellant has been able to satisfy the requirement of Section 43D (5) of the UAPA for grant of bail.”
Advocate Aarif Ali appeared for the Appellant, while SPP Rahul Tyagi represented the Respondent.
An FIR was registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) against the accused allegeing that operatives of LeT were raising funds to facilitate operations in India. One of the co-accused was alleged to have been a key member of LeT and involved in reconnaissance for attacks. The accused was arrested for allegedly transferring Rs. 3.5 lakh through hawala channels at the direction of a Pakistani national.
The accused contended that he had no knowledge of the intended recipient’s association with LeT. He further argued that the funds were never actually delivered, as the transfer process had failed. It was also submitted that the appellant had been in custody for nearly five years, during which the prosecution had examined only nine out of 221 witnesses, making the conclusion of the trial unlikely in the near future.
The High Court noted that while the chargesheet included allegations of telephonic conversations between the appellant and the intended recipient, there was no evidence to establish that the appellant was aware of the recipient's identity as an LeT operative. The Court further noted that two co-accused had already been discharged from the case.
Consequently, the Court directed, “The Appellant is directed to be released on bail upon his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- alongwith two sureties of like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Court.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Javed Ali @ Javed v. National Investigation Agency (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8797-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Aarif Ali, Pankaj Tiwari, Mujahid Ahmad and Dhirendra Kumar Verma
Respondent: SPP Rahul Tyagi; APP Jatin and Vikas Walia; Advocates Sangeet Sibou and Aniket