High Court Denies Bail to Kashmiri Youth Accused of ISIS Support and Illegal Weapons Procurement

The High Court refused to grant regular bail to a 25-year-old Kashmiri youth booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He is accused of being a supporter of the ideology of the banned terrorist organization ISIS, arranging illegal weapons and providing other logistics support.

A division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Manoj Jain rejected the bail plea of Jamsheed Zahoor Paul, who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2018.

The NIA alleged that Paul had allegiance to ISIS and was involved in procuring arms and ammunition for its cadres to carry out certain terrorist acts in Jammu and Kashmir.

Paul was captured in the national capital after he was found moving towards the Red Fort. A pistol was recovered from him, which had five cartridges in its magazine.

According to the prosecution, Paul and another person arrested along with him revealed that they had purchased the recovered weapons from four people from UP in exchange for money.

It was also alleged that during the investigation the duo revealed that they were propagating the ideology of terrorist ISIS in India and were in touch with another ISIS terrorist, Abdullah Basith.

Rejecting his bail plea, the bench said that the purchase of sophisticated weapons cannot be ignored just like that. It states that Paul’s revelations do indeed reveal certain important facts and, therefore, such portions cannot be termed inadmissible.

The court said the BBM display photo of the appellant’s account contained the image of four terrorists, two of whom were carrying AK-47 rifles. Such profile picture of the BBM account of the Appellant reveals his mental condition and given the peculiar factual matrix of the case, it cannot be casually discarded.

The bench said that Paul and the other accused had purchased weapons from UP, had come to Delhi together and were planning to go to Kashmir together. Therefore, the court held that at this initial juncture, it cannot be said that there was no consent or tacit understanding or meeting of minds between them.

Also read: Congress Turns Telangana Its ATM: Amit Shah In Siddipet Rally

The court said that according to the prosecution these weapons were being arranged to perpetuate terror and therefore, at this stage, examining the case on the widest possible spectrum, there is material to show that the prima facie case against the appellant is correct. It is a matter.

Gopal Krishna