The Supreme Court on Friday granted bail to an accused in the Jammu & Kashmir larger conspiracy case being investigated by the National Investigation Agency, noting that the applicant had remained in custody since October 2021 and the completion of the trial would take considerable time.

The case arises out of an FIR registered by the NIA under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, alleging a larger conspiracy involving radicalisation, terror funding and recruitment activities in Jammu & Kashmir. According to the prosecution, anti-national organisations were allegedly using digital and physical networks to radicalise local youth and facilitate handling of arms, ammunition and explosives.

The allegations against the accused were that he had provided refuge and logistical support to members associated with banned organisations. Bail had earlier been rejected both by the trial court and the High Court.

Also Read- J&K Larger Conspiracy Case: Supreme Court Directs NIA to Produce Witness Physically After Accused Opposes Examination via Commissioner https://thebarbulletin.com/supreme-court-witness-physical-production-nia/

During the hearing before the Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi, counsel for the accused argued that two protected witnesses examined so far had not implicated him in the alleged conspiracy. It was submitted that the principal allegation against him was that he had taken two individuals to a particular house, but the house owner himself had later denied the prosecution’s version. Counsel further argued that the remaining evidence consisted primarily of extracts from the accused’s phone and a disclosure statement allegedly made in custody, without any consequential recovery.

The defence also pointed to parity with co-accused persons who had already been granted bail.

The NIA opposed the plea, contending that the matter pertained to a larger conspiracy in the Kashmir region and that several protected witnesses were yet to be examined. However, it was fairly stated before the Court that the two protected witnesses already examined had completed their testimony. Granting relief, the Court observed:

“Taking into consideration the period already spent in custody and the fact that conclusion of trial might take some little more time, and also keeping the parity claimed by the applicant, though without expressing any opinion on the nature, gravity and reality of the allegations, we are inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail subject to the satisfaction of the NIA Court.”

The Court further directed that the trial court ensure the accused’s presence during proceedings so that no impediment is caused to the ongoing trial.

During the hearing, the accused also sought relaxation of the requirement of physical appearance before the trial court, citing parity with certain co-accused who had been permitted to appear through video conferencing. The Supreme Court permitted him to move the trial court for such relief, directing that the request be considered in accordance with the law.

Appearances

For Petitioner- Mr. Kartik Murukutla, Adv. Mr. Farrukh Rasheed, AOR Mr. Abu Bakr Sabbaq, Adv.

For Respondent- Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. K M Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv. Mr. Tanmay Mehta, Adv. Mrs. Bani Dixit, Adv. Mr. Raman Yadav, Adv. Ms. Sarthak Karol, Adv. Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Aman Mehta, Adv