NIA opposes bail relaxation for PDP's Waheed Para
In a detailed objection submitted to the Special NIA Court in Jammu, the anti-terror agency said Para's plea is not maintainable and needs to be dismissed as 'intention of the applicant/ accused is to flee from the clutches of law.'
PDP's Para is leader of the Legislature Party in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly. Parra had been jailed for around 19 months under sections of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in 2020 and was released on bail by the J&K High Court in 2021.
While granting bail, Para was directed not to leave the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without the prior written permission of the court during the period of bail.
Para, who represents the Pulwama assembly segment, was one of three legislators from the party who won the elections last year.
The MLA had pleaded before the court that he may be allowed to travel to any part of the country citing his constitutional obligation as a legislator.
'Trial in the instant case is being conducted expeditiously on regular basis. There is a strong apprehension that the applicant/ accused would misuse the liberty and may not come back to face the proceedings in relation to chargesheet that has already been filed,' the NIA said in its objections.
The NIA said that the investigations have revealed that the accused Parra 'entered into the conspiracy with other co-accused for raising funds to procure arms and ammunition for terrorists of the banned terrorist organisation Hizb-ulMujahideen and Lashkar-e-Taiba, operating in Kashmir valley.'
'Besides, Waheed Para extended financial support to the separatist leaders for furtherance of secessionist activities,' the anti terror body told the Court.
'The said bail conditions in no way prevents the accused from discharging his constitutional duties as an elected MLA,' NIA said 'In the event that his presence is specifically required outside the Union Territory of J&K in furtherance of any constitutional obligation, the court may consider such requests on a case-to-case basis'.
The NIA said that based on the evidence that came on record, charges in the court have been framed under section 120B of the IPC, sections 17, 18, 39 & 40 of the UA(P)Act in December 2022.
The NIA, while praying for dismissal of Parra's application, said that he is 'not a law abiding person and is involved in serious offences related to national security'.
The Special NIA Court is yet to pronounce its order on the application.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
27 minutes ago
- First Post
Mohammad Hidayatullah: The only Indian vice-president who also officiated as President and CJI
As India's second-highest office falls vacant with the resignation of Jagdeep Dhankhar, history recalls the only man to have held the top three read more In an unprecedented development in India's constitutional history, Vice President Jagdeep Dhankhar tendered his resignation, citing health-related reasons. His exit from the second-highest constitutional office marks the first time a sitting vice president has voluntarily stepped down before completing the term. The resignation has created a temporary vacancy in the Rajya Sabha chair and prompted fresh discourse on constitutional succession. The Ministry of Home Affairs confirmed the resignation under Article 67A of the Indian Constitution, with immediate effect. Following the announcement in the Rajya Sabha by BJP MP Ghanshyam Tiwari, Deputy Chairman Harivansh Narayan Singh assumed responsibility for chairing proceedings. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD This development brings to mind a moment from 1969, when India faced a similar constitutional gap and a remarkable figure—Mohammad Hidayatullah—rose to fill it. A stalwart of the Indian judiciary and polity, Hidayatullah remains the only individual in Indian history to have held the offices of Chief Justice of India (CJI), Acting President, and Vice President. A star in the Indian judiciary Hidayatullah was elevated to the position of Chief Justice of India in February 1968, under Article 124 of the Constitution. He was the first Muslim to hold the post and earned respect for his sharp constitutional insights and erudition. Assuming the presidency in a time of crisis The summer of 1969 brought a constitutional conundrum. President Zakir Husain passed away in office and Vice-President VV Giri stepped in as acting president. However, when Giri resigned to contest the presidential election, both the top posts stood vacant. Under the provisions of Article 65 and the President (Discharge of Functions) Act, 1969, Chief Justice Hidayatullah was called upon to act as the President of India from July 20 to August 24, 1969. This was a moment of historical significance. It was the first and only time the chief justice had to act as the president due to vacancies in both the president and vice-president's offices. The Constitution, in its foresight, allowed for such an eventuality, highlighting the depth and resilience of India's legal framework. Vice-presidential tenure After retiring from the judiciary, Hidayatullah remained an influential figure in public life. In 1979, he was elected unopposed as the sixth Vice President of India, serving until 1984. His election was guided by Articles 63 to 68 of the Constitution, which regulate the post. During his tenure, he again briefly served as 'Acting President' in 1982 when President Zail Singh was abroad, reiterating his unique role in India's constitutional machinery. Landmark judgments and legal philosophy Hidayatullah's legacy as a jurist is rich with landmark cases and scholarly judgments. In the Golaknath vs State of Punjab case, he opposed Parliament's unrestrained power to amend the Constitution, especially concerning Fundamental Rights. His judgment in Ranjit D Udeshi vs State of Maharashtra also set important boundaries around freedom of expression and obscenity laws. His opinions combined legal precision with literary elegance, reflecting his vast intellectual horizon. Beyond the courtroom Hidayatullah remains a towering figure whose constitutional journey is unmatched. His ability to serve in the judiciary's highest post, temporarily hold the presidency and later serve as vice president highlights the flexibility of India's constitutional provisions and the depth of leadership they can foster. At a moment when India's vice-president's office stands vacant, reflecting on Hidayatullah's legacy provides both historical perspective and institutional reassurance. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Indian Express
27 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal dismisses Congress appeal against Rs 199 crore tax assessment
Denying relief to the Indian National Congress, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on Monday dismissed an appeal by the party against a tax demand of ₹199.15 crore for the year 2018-19. Late return filing and violations of cash donation limits were among the main grounds due to which the ITAT rejected the party's claim for tax exemption. 'The assessee's return filed on 02.02.2019 is not within the 'due' date to make it eligible for the impugned exemption,' ruled the coram on July 21. The INC had filed its income tax return on February 2, 2019 – over a month after the extended due date of December 31, 2018, prescribed under the IT Act. It had declared income after claiming an exemption of Rs. 199.15 crores. Another issue that the ITAT looked at was a violation of cash donation limits. According to scrutiny proceedings, the party had received ₹14.49 lakh in cash donations exceeding ₹2,000 from various individuals. Donations above ₹ 2,000 can only be received through banking channels like account payee cheques or electronic transfers as per the Finance Act, 2017. 'As per section 13A(d) of the Act, donation in excess of ₹2,000/- is mandatorily be received through a/c payee cheque/draft or through electronic mode and therefore donation in excess of ₹2,000/- received in cash violates provisions of clause (d) of first proviso to section 13A of the Act,' the ITAT order stated. The Congress tried to find respite in Section 139(4) of the IT Act which states that if an individual misses the ITR filing deadline, they can still file a belated return, subject to penalties. The ITAT, however, denied it relief. '…it is manifestly clear that the legislature has incorporated the statutory expression therein as 'within the time allowed under that section' i.e. section 139(1) as well as u/s 139(4)…we thus reject the assessee's instant first and foremost substantive grievance in very terms and decide the above first question framed between the parties; in the department's favour,' the tribunal ruled.
News18
33 minutes ago
- News18
Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases
The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system The acquittal of all 12 convicts in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case by the Bombay High Court on July 21 has stunned the nation. The devastating attacks, which claimed 189 lives and injured over 800, led to a trial court convicting the accused in 2015. But the higher court overturned that verdict, citing the prosecution's failure to present credible evidence. This case reflects a broader trend in India's criminal justice system—prosecutions in high-profile terror cases and other serious crimes often collapse due to weak evidence, procedural delays, and political interference, leaving victims and the public disillusioned. There are legal and political factors behind these failures. Drawing on the Mumbai case, the 2G spectrum scandal, and systemic trends, one can understand why convictions often remain elusive. Robust evidence is the foundation of any successful prosecution, yet criminal cases in the country often stumble here. In the Mumbai train blasts case, the Bombay High Court flagged unreliable witnesses, flawed identification parades, and inadmissible confessions allegedly extracted through torture. The prosecution couldn't even specify what type of bombs were used—an indicator of unpreparedness. This evidentiary fragility is not limited to terror cases. For instance, in the 2017 2G spectrum case, all accused, including A Raja and K Kanimozhi, were acquitted because the CBI failed to produce sufficient documents or reliable witnesses after years of investigation. A 2019 Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy report reinforces this view, citing uncorroborated testimonies and coerced confessions as recurring issues. Courts demand strong, verifiable proof—when agencies rely on shaky foundations, acquittals become inevitable. Another chronic flaw is the lack of a comprehensive witness protection law. Witnesses often retract statements or refuse to testify due to fear of reprisal. The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged this issue, noting that laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) offer only limited protection. In cases involving organised crime, threats from powerful syndicates further weaken the prosecution. Strengthening evidence collection and ensuring witness safety are thus essential reforms. Procedural delays and systemic inefficiencies The nation's criminal justice system is bogged down by procedural delays and inefficiencies, which undermine even the strongest cases. Investigations often involve multiple agencies, causing coordination failures. The 2002 Akshardham attack case is a clear example—the Supreme Court, in 2014, criticised the investigation's lack of diligence after a series of handovers between agencies. Special courts, meant to fast-track serious crime trials, often share space with regular courts, creating backlogs. The Vidhi report points out that even high-profile cases under UAPA or MCOCA languish for years due to overburdened dockets and limited resources. The Mumbai train blasts case, for instance, took nearly two decades to reach a final verdict—long enough for evidence to degrade and witness recollections to fade. Laws like UAPA permit prolonged pre-charge detention—up to 180 days, compared to 24 hours under the Criminal Procedure Code. Agencies sometimes detain suspects without building strong cases, assuming that the legal process itself serves as punishment. But once cases reach higher courts, judges scrutinise them more rigorously, often leading to acquittals, as seen in the Mumbai case. Better agency coordination and court infrastructure are key to reducing delays and improving outcomes. Judicial scepticism and the misuse of stringent laws The country has stringent laws—like the now-defunct TADA, repealed POTA, UAPA, and Maharashtra's MCOCA—to empower law enforcement against terror and organised crime. But when misapplied, they often lead to prosecution failures. In the Mumbai case, the prosecution leaned heavily on MCOCA, but the High Court found the supporting evidence too weak, resulting in acquittals. The Vidhi report highlights that POTA Review Committees found no prima facie evidence in 1,006 out of 1,529 cases by 2005—indicating misuse. Under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, bail is denied if courts see any reasonable ground for guilt. This leads to prolonged detentions without trial. However, higher courts remain wary of overreach. For example, in the 2007 Mecca Masjid blast case, all 39 accused were acquitted due to a lack of evidence beyond coerced confessions. Judicial scepticism is widespread, even in financial scam cases, where agencies detain suspects but fail to produce solid evidence. Judges play a key role—no matter how stringent the law, a judge's discretion determines its application. When evidence is weak, courts hesitate to convict, especially in an era where judicial outlooks are influenced by liberal constitutional values. The perception that the legal process is the punishment has become more entrenched. Agencies may use long detentions to pressure suspects, but without credible evidence, courts intervene—leading to collapses like that of the Mumbai case. Thus, the focus must return to meticulous evidence collection and responsible application of law. Political interference and federal tensions Political dynamics often complicate criminal prosecutions. Federalism-based conflicts between the Centre and states delay investigations. Agencies like the National Investigation Agency (NIA) require state cooperation. The controversial National Counter Terrorism Centre (NCTC) proposal failed after 14 states opposed it, citing threats to federal autonomy. Similarly, Gujarat's 2015 GCTOC Bill was delayed due to a lack of Presidential assent, stalling state-level efforts. Political alignments can also shape outcomes. The 2G spectrum case offers a telling example. On December 21, 2017, a special CBI court in New Delhi acquitted all accused—including A Raja and K. Kanimozhi—calling the case baseless. The court noted that despite one and a half years of waiting, the CBI failed to bring in evidence or witnesses. Judge OP Saini expressed frustration, saying the agency 'couldn't care less". This came at a time when the DMK appeared poised for a resurgence after J Jayalalithaa's death, while the BJP, with actor Rajinikanth hesitating to join politics, seemed to seek renewed ties with M Karunanidhi—its one-time ally during the Vajpayee era. Prime Minister Narendra Modi had even been photographed with Karunanidhi's family just months before the verdict. Was the CBI 'nudged" to go soft on DMK leaders? Media trials further complicate matters. In high-profile cases, widespread coverage often convinces the public that an accused is guilty long before a court weighs the evidence. But judges—aware of media excesses—may be repelled by aggressive reportage, affecting their outlook. Public perception, shaped by these narratives, pushes agencies to act fast, sometimes cutting corners. But legal outcomes depend on facts, not headlines. Reducing political interference and improving Centre-state coordination are vital to restoring integrity in prosecutions. Legal representation and the prosecution-defence gap The outcome of trials often hinges on the quality of legal representation. There's a stark imbalance between well-resourced defence lawyers and overburdened or undertrained state prosecutors. To fix this, the nation must invest in the training and independence of public prosecutors. Only then can they counter the skill and strategy of top defence lawyers. Road ahead: Reforming the system The acquittal of all 12 accused in the Mumbai train blasts case is not just a legal outcome—it is a mirror to our broken criminal justice system. Evidentiary lapses, systemic delays, misuse of harsh laws, political meddling, and lopsided legal representation all contribute to failed prosecutions. These failures cut across terror cases, corruption scandals, and violent crimes, leaving victims without closure and eroding public faith in the system. Reforms are urgent. Investigative agencies need better training. Witness protection laws must be enacted. Court infrastructure must expand to reduce backlogs. Political interference must be checked by preserving institutional autonomy. And prosecution teams must be strengthened to ensure fair competition in the courtroom. top videos View all Justice in India cannot remain hostage to inefficiencies and influence. A legal system that upholds fairness, efficiency, and accountability is the only way to deliver justice—and restore faith that those behind mass killings, like the Mumbai train blasts, will face the consequences of their crimes. The author is a senior journalist and writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Bombay High Court judiciary justice Mumbai train blasts view comments Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: July 22, 2025, 18:45 IST News opinion Opinion | Mumbai Blasts To 2G Scam: Challenges That Explain Prosecution Failures In Criminal Cases Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
