Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Abdul Rashid Rather vs Union Territory Through Police Station on 16 July, 2025
Author: Sanjeev Kumar
Bench: Sanjeev Kumar
Serial No.4
REGULAR CAUSE LIST
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlA(D) 9/2025 CrlM(177/2025)
Abdul Rashid Rather ...Appellant(s)
Through: Mr. Khan Sameer, Advocate
Vs.
Union Territory Through Police Station ...Respondent(s)
Dooru
Through: Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice
Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR, JUDGE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE.
ORDER
16.07.2025
01. This appeal by the appellant Abdul Rashid Rather,
who is accused in case FIR No. 138/2021, Police Station
Dooru, for commission of offences under Sections 302,
307 &326 IPC, Sections 16, 18, 19, 20, 23 and 39 UAP
Act, and Section 7/25 and 7/27 of the Arms Act,
challenges an order dated 23rd January, 2025, passed by
the learned Special Judge, UAPA, Anantnag, [“the trial
Court”], whereby the trial Court has rejected the bail
application filed by the appellant.
02. The impugned order has been challenged by the
appellant primarily on the ground that the trial Court has
not appreciated that there is no evidence come on record
to prove the involvement of the appellant in the
commission of offences allegedly committed by him. He
submits that there are major contradictions in the
statements of witnesses and, therefore, the story projected
by the prosecution cannot be said to be prima facie true.
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
17.07.25
03. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the material on record, it is seen that there are as
many as twenty-four prosecution witnesses cited by the
prosecution in the challan. On an earlier occasion, when
the bail plea of the appellant was rejected by the trial
Court, an appeal was preferred before this Court. At that
time the trial Court had examined ten out of twenty-four
prosecution witnesses. When the appeal filed by the
appellant was taken up for consideration by this Court,
the appellant withdrew the appeal with a liberty to file
fresh bail after a period of four months or after the
statement of the Investigating Officer was recorded,
whichever was earlier. The request of the appellant was
accepted by the Court, and the appeal was dismissed as
withdrawn, with a request to the trial Court to expedite
the trial process.
04. The trial Court has thereafter examined three more
witnesses, and the trial is going on. Eleven witnesses are
yet to be examined, and nothing new has come on record
which would support the plea of the appellant. The
material on record in the shape of testimonies of the
witnesses so far recorded does not support the contention
of the learned counsel for the appellant that the case put
up by the prosecution against him is prima facie not true.
05. We cannot, at this stage, sift through the entire
evidence and conduct a mini-trial to find out whether, on
the basis of evidence so far brought on record, the
appellant is entitled to be acquitted or not. There is prima
facie evidence come on record during the trial which
clearly points to the prima facie involvement of the
appellant not only in harboring the militants but also in
providing substantial aid and assistance. The encounter
has taken place in the house of the appellant, and arms
and ammunition have been recovered therefrom. Even at
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document the instance of the appellant, recovery of weapons has
17.07.25
been made. Whether or not the prosecution has
succeeded to prove the recoveries, as also the presence of
the appellant in the house at the time of encounter, are
matters of appreciation after the trial is concluded.
06. For the foregoing reasons, we see no reason or
justification to interfere with the order impugned passed
by the trial Court. This appeal is found to be without
merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. The
appellant, however, shall be at liberty to file a fresh bail
plea before the trial Court only if there is a change of
circumstances, viz; recording of some more witnesses, in
particular the statement of the Investigating Officer.
(SANJAY PARIHAR) (SANJEEV KUMAR)
JUDGE JUDGE
SRINAGAR:
16.07.2025
"Mir Arif"
(i) Whether the order is speaking? Yes/No.
(ii) Whether the order is reportable? Yes/No.
MIR ARIF MANZOOR
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
17.07.25
[ad_1]
Source link