"There's A Probability That They Would Not have Intended To Snatch The Rifle From An Army Man":Kashmir Court Grants Bail To Two Persons Booked Under UAPA[Read Order]

Special Judge Sanjay Parihar further observed that security forces some time work under the hostile atmosphere and the militant organization, under the garb of playing a particular cause, do influence ordinary citizens to resist the search and security operation initiated by the security agencies in the 'troubled U.T of J&K.'

The order has come in a bail application moved by two brothers, Mudasir Ahmed Khan and Mohammad Yaseen Khan, who are accused of offences under section 13 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and sections 392, 511, 353, 336, and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the police complaint filed by Rashtriya Rifles, the Petitioners obstructed the discharge of official duties by the security forces, allegedly attacked them and also tried to snatch their rifle.

Moreover, the police report says, the Petitioners also raised slogans against the country.

Claiming that they've been falsely implicated in this case, the Petitioners submitted that they were in Srinagar to take care of their ailing parents when the security forces started knocking at their doors in the night.

As the Petitioners took some time in opening the door, the officers of the security forces got furious and started beating them up, which caused head injury to one of the Petitioners.

Moreover, the Petitioners argued that their continued detention is causing a lot of hardship and harassment to their families.

The Prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the Petitioners have committed heinous offence whereby they have obstructed performance of duties by the security forces who are maintaining law and order and were conducting a search in respect of militants who were active in the area.

It was further argued by the Prosecution that the Petitioners attacked the police party and one of them also made an attempt to snatch rifle which the security officer was carrying.

While perusing the submissions, the court highlighted that:

'Though because of the prevailing circumstances and during night hours nobody would like to open the door as that may invite sometimes entrance of militants who under the garb of army and police uniform do enter in the villages for safety and food. In these circumstances petitioners cannot be stated to have violated law by not opening the door of their house in time.'

The court also observed the fact that the police report does not divulge any past history of accused having been involved in obstructing or creating trouble in the ordinary duties of the security forces.

While upholding the principle that the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, the court highlighted that continued incarceration of the Petitioners is not going to serve any purpose as they are stated to be only bread earners of their family, they happen to be the real brothers who were working in a hotel at Srinagar and on the day of occurrence had been to their residence.

In light of these observations, the court granted bail to both the accused upon furnishing a bail bond of ₹ 1 lac.

Click Here To Download Order

[Read Order]