The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the release of an accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act after observing that there was no material to connect him with the allegations.
The petitioner, Gurpal Singh, was seeking bail in the FIR registered at the police station of the State Special Operations Cell, Mohali, District Intelligence Wing (CID), in March last year for the murder and other offences under Sections 302, 307, 382, 384, 392 of the IPC. Certain Sections of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act were added later on.
Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu observed the prosecution’s case was that a mobile handset was recovered from Gagandeep Singh, alias Judge. As per the analysis report, the mobile phone had 256 contacts, including 127 international. All contacts were code-worded.
The accused were being instructed from their bosses abroad. Their foreign counterparts provided them financial aid through hawala and other modes.
The prosecution had also claimed that their links with foreign counterparts had been established through Internet dongles also. The accused were in contact with each other and far across the border with modern information technology gadgets like walky-talky sets. They procured dangerous illegal weapons and were also in touch with the “infamous secret agency ISI of Pakistan” through these walky-talky sets.
Justice Sidhu asserted the allegations appeared to be very serious. But ther e appeared to be no material to connect the petitioner with it. His specific role in the activities allegedly attracting offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was not forthcoming from the charge sheet.
Beyond merely asserting that the petitioner and the other accused were involved in terrorist activities, the State counsel had not been able to point out any material collected during investigation to connect the petitioner with the accusations sought to be made and to indicate that the allegations against the petitioner regarding the offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, were prima facie true. In fact, no specific act attracting these offences had been pointed out.
“The foreign contacts are recorded in the mobile handset recovered from Gagandeep Singh, alias Judge. How the petitioner is connected therewith is not forthcoming. It is also not the case of the prosecution that any of those contacts is involved in promoting anti-national activities,” the Bench concluded.
source ; ://www.tribuneindia.com/
0 Comments