Special NIA court rejects bail plea of Pulwama terror attack accused Insha Jan

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

A special NIA court has rejected the bail plea of Insha Jan alias Insha Tariq, an accused in the 2019 Pulwama suicide attack that killed 40 CRPF personnel, observing that sufficient material existed on record to presume that the accusations against her were prima facie true.

In his 15-page order delivered on August 20, Special Judge Prem Sagar held that the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) also operated against the accused and prevented her release on bail at this stage.

Jan, a resident of Harkipora village in south Kashmir’s Pulwama district, was arrested along with her father, Peer Tariq Ahmad Shah, on March 3, 2020.

She is facing trial on charges under the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), the UAPA, the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act. The court framed charges against her on December 10, 2022.

According to the NIA’s chargesheet, Jan was allegedly involved in the terror conspiracy and remained in constant contact with Pakistani terrorist Muhammad Umar Farooq, who, along with another Pakistani terrorist Mohd Kamran Ali, was involved in planning the Pulwama attack before they were eliminated in separate encounters by security forces.

She is also accused of providing food, shelter and other logistical support to the two terrorists and other Jaish-e-Mohammed operatives.

Besides, a viral video of suicide bomber Adil Ahmad Dar, which went viral after the February 14, 2019, attack, was allegedly recorded at her house on January 28 and 29.

The court's decision came after it considered the arguments from both the defence and the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

The defence relied principally on Jan’s prolonged incarceration, alleged delay in trial, and her health condition, while the NIA opposed the bail plea citing the seriousness of the charges, the material collected during investigation, and the restrictions imposed by Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA.

The defence submitted that Jan has been in custody for more than six years and argued that the prolonged trial had made her continued incarceration unjustified.

The bail application said that 49 prosecution witnesses had been examined out of 240 witnesses at the relevant stage, with the defence arguing that, at the existing pace, the trial could continue for many more years.

It also claimed that the witnesses examined had not directly or indirectly connected the applicant with the commission of the offences and that no incriminating material had been recovered from her.

The defence also invoked her health, claiming that she was suffering from chronic dermatological problems, cervical spondylosis and chronic headache and required specialised medical treatment.