On Monday, the Patiala court in New Delhi Court granted bail to a 25-year-old Kashmiri photojournalist Mohammed Mannan Dar in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The court observed that the accusation made by National Investigation Agency (NIA) against him does not appear to be cogent and true, Live Law reported.
His family members speaking to The Kashmiriyat expressed thankfulness to the counsel of Manan, advocates Tara Narula and Tamanna Pankaj. They said they were hopeful that Mannan will be released soon from Tihar where he is currently lodged.
“We are extremely thankful to Allah who supported us during such hard times and to the judge who has granted much deserved bail to Mannan. His counsel worked tirelessly for his bail,” they said.
Mannan Dar, a resident of Srinagar was arrested on October 10, 2021, after police in Srinagar summoned him for questioning at Batamaloo Police Station. Officials with the NIA formally arrested him on October 22, as per the family.
The photojournalist is accused in case along with 23 other Kashmiris registered in October 2021, under Sections 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA and sections 120B, 121A, 122, and 123 of the Indian Penal Code.
NIA also raided Dar’s family home in Srinagar and seized cellphones, the family’s deed to their home, and financial documents.
Additional Sessions Judge Shailender Malik observed that the allegation of “assisting a proscribed terrorist organization discreetly whereas ostensibly carrying on legitimate activities like an advocate, journalist, etc” must be supported by direct evidence of any such activities.
The court said, “Mere assumptions or incomplete evidence to establish such facts may not be sufficient. This court would not discuss elaborately statements of the witnesses naming the accused/applicant, except to note that such statements may not be conclusive.”
On the allegation that Dar shared images of security forces and deployment under the cover of being a photojournalist, the special judge said that a perusal of extracted data from his mobile phone would show that while there are Telegram messages and images, they do not indicate that the same was sent by Dar.
“No doubt there is an indirect reference showing the share of links of other smaller, private messaging applications like Tam Tam, Nand messenger, etc. to avoid detection of the messages. Similarly, there is also WhatsApp chat retrieved in which there is one message enquiring as to whether there is Hanan or Manan. However such messages, chat etc. may not be sufficient at least at this stage to show that accused/applicant sent message or was part of chat,” the court said, as per Live Law.
The court also observed that there is no evidence to show that Dar shared any photograph or image of security forces or deployment with any individual or organization at any point of time.
“Moreover evidence is only upto the extent of such photograph/videos/images being stored in mobile phone of accused/applicant which even as per prosecution case, also was being used by A-9. Therefore taking into account all these evidence on face of it, it would be enough to observe for the purpose of bail application that such evidence do not connect or are not sufficient to indicate accused/applicant being part of conspiracy or other charges,” it added.
The court further said that though it would not go into detailed scrutiny of the evidence at this stage but “it would be sufficient to say that none of the evidence referred to (D-30, D-90, D-89 and D-141) or statement of witnesses (PW-251, PW-261 and X-14) in any manner indicate any act of ‘terrorist activity’ as defined /s 15 of the Act, in any manner.”
“At the cost of repetition this court would not make much observation on the merits of the matter but I find that having certain objectionable material in the mobile phone of someone which a prudent person otherwise would have deleted the same, ipso facto would not be sufficient for connecting the accused with the alegations/offences,” it added.
“It was further held that mere association with terrorist organization is not sufficient to attract Section 38 of the Act and mere support given to terrorist organization is also not sufficient to attract Section 39 of the Act. Association and support have to be with the intention of furthering the activity of terrorist organization. Such intention can be inferred from the overt act or an act of active participation of accused in activities of terrorist organization.”
The special judge thus held that Dar has been able to establish a case satisfying the requirement of Section 43-D(5) of the Act.
“…and this court upon analysis of entire evidence and at least for the purpose of disposal of bail application it can be observed that accusation against the
accused does not appear to be cogent and true,” said the judge, while granting the accused bail.