A Delhi Court has granted bail to a 22-year-old Kashmiri Youth, Mateen Ahmed Bhatt, in a UAPA case, observing that there was no evidence of handling of arms or joining of any classes for radical teaching on religious lines by him.
Bhatt was arrested on October 13, 2021.
“…I find that accusation against the accused does not appear to be convincing atleast for the purpose of deciding the question of bail. More particularly taking into consideration the age and the fact that accused has no previous criminal antecedents and also taking into consideration the period of detention. Hence bail application of accused is allowed…,” Special NIA judge Shailendar Malik of Patiala House Courts said in an order passed on Wednesday.
The case was registered by NIA and it alleged that militant groups like Lashkar-e-Toiba. Jaish-e-Mohammad, Hizb-Ul-Mujahideen and Al-Badar hatched a conspiracy after abrogation of Article 370 “to revive terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of India,” Live Law reported.
The NIA has alleged that “United Jihad Council” was made under a larger conspiracy for coordinating with other militant groups on the instruction of ISI for carrying out terror activities.
The NIA alleged that Bhatt started working as an “over ground worker” for other active militants and handlers based in Pakistan and was also involved in providing logistical support, recruitment of local youths and assisting active cadres in the Kashmir Valley, the legal website reported. It was further alleged that Bhatt was in contact with active militants and various incriminating audio clips were retrieved from his mobile phone.
Meanwhile the court said: “There is also no evidence of any handling of arms, ammunition by the accused or joining any classes for radical teaching, on the line of religion.”
The court added: “As per prosecution case there is no evidence of accused having done any “overt act” like supply of arms/ammunition, sending of any information by way of chats on social media…. Certain contents like pictures, reference etc. would not be enough for the point of relief of bail to conclude about accusation against accused/applicant.”
This story was originally published in maktoobmedia.com. Read the full story here