Terrorism in India:
The country has been in the firm grip of spiralling terrorist violence and is caught between deadly pangs of disruptive activities. Apart from many skirmishes in various parts of the country, there were countless serious and horrendous events engulfing many cities with blood bath, firing, looting, mad killing even without sparing women and children and reducing those areas into a graveyard, which brutal atrocities have rocked and shocked the whole nation. Deplorably determined youth, lured by hard-core criminals and underground extremists and attracted by the ideology of terrorism are indulging in committing serious crimes against the humanity.
[Source: Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1994) 3 SCC 569]
Terrorism is an evil affecting the life and liberty of peace loving people. Terrorism has no barriers, it may strike anybody anytime, any amount of precautionary measures and security arrangements may prove futile to combat terrorism. Fundamental rights to individual liberty is certainly valuable. But when it is pitted against the life and liberty of the people at large, it becomes insignificant. Terrorism effects the growth of the nation. The resources of the nation have to be utilized to combat terrorism: it could be utilized in better ways for the betterment of the people. Offences against individuals are to be distinguished from offences affecting nation and people at large. Parameters to be adopted in the matter of considering the pleas of bail would also be different in these cases. A strict approach in the latter category of cases is justified. Sympathy has no rule in dealing with such cases.
[Source: Mohammad Navas vs. SHO, (2009 (3) KHC 545 (J&K)]
Bail to a Terrorist.
The respondents were arrested on 20.04.2018 in connection with the commission of offences aforesaid. The police report further reveals that three cell phones were recovered from the petitioners namely Asia Indrabi, Sofi Fehmida and Mst. Nahida on the search of their person. On a cursory glance of these phones, it was found that these were carrying the photographs of the leaders of some militants’ organizations living across the border. It was also found that the respondents Asia Indrabi is in close contact with the leaders of the militants’ organizations living across the border. It is further stated that these phones have been sent to FSL and the report is still awaited. It was also found that it was at the behest and asking of the respondents that the violent mob pelted stones on the moving vehicles on 18.04.2018. It is further stated that the respondents, namely, Asia Indrabi is the Chairperson of “Dukhtaran-i-Milat”, which is a terrorist organization. It is also stated that the investigation of the case is in progress and the respondents have to be interrogated for their involvement in the commission of offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 341, 427, 307, 120-B RPC, 3 / 4 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Property (Prevention of Damages) Act, 1985 and 18/20/38 of the 1967 Act.
Thus from the perusal of the police report which is referred to in preceding paragraph, in our considered opinion, the action of the respondents would fall within the purview of Section 15(1)(a)(ii) read with Section 18 of the 1967 Act. From further perusal of the report, it is also axiomatic that there are reasonable grounds for believing that accusations against the respondents are prima facie true. It is also noteworthy that the investigation in the case is in progress and the respondents have to be interrogated for their involvement in the commission of the offences. In view of the provisions contained in the 1967 Act, which is a special provision, the age old maxim that grant of bail is the rule and the refusal is an exception does not hold good in a case like the present one provided the Court comes to the conclusion that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations levelled against the accused persons are prima facie true. In view of Sections 15, 18, 43-D(5) of the 1967 Act and the material available in the police report, in our considered opinion, the Trial Court has exercised the discretion to grant the bail in an erroneous manner.
In view of preceding analysis, the impugned order granting bail to the respondents is hereby quashed. In the result, the appeal is allowed
[Source : State Of J&K vs Mst. Asia Indrabi decided by J&K High Court on 31 May, 2018]