Court rejects bail plea of PDP leader Waheed Parra
Srinaga: A special court rejected the bail application of PDP leader Waheed Parra on Tuesday, saying the charges against him were “grave, serious and heinous in nature” and that a preliminary analysis of evidence collected so far show “he was aiding militancy in Jammu and Kashmir in the garb of a politician”.
In a 19-page order, the special court here rejected the argument that Parra was a budding politician and said “a perusal of the CD file transpired that in the garb of a politician, the petitioner had been playing an active role in funding the militants and had also been demanding arms and ammunition against payment by misusing his position”.
The bank accounts show huge transactions and the matter is still being investigated and the facts would come out with the passage of time and conclusion of investigation, the court said.
Parra was detained by the Criminal Investigation Department (Kashmir) and brought from Jammu on a transit remand, after his release by an NIA court on January 09. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) had arrested Parra on November 25 in a separate case related to terrorism.
The counsel for Parra claimed that his client had managed to win the District Development Council (DDC) elections while he was in custody of the NIA which alleged that he had paid Rs 10 lakh to Naveed Babu, a militant of the Hizbul Mujahideen, for “managing” the 2019 parliamentary elections in south Kashmir.
The judge, while rejecting this contention said that Parra having won “does not deserve any consideration because it means that the petitioner is a highly influential person and can tamper with evidence and no witness would depose against him”.
The judge said the allegation against the accused “are so grave, serious and heinous in nature that if a balance is to be struck vis-a-vis the personal liberty of petitioner and the security of the state/UT, it is the interest and the security of the state/UT which shall prevail.”
The counsel for Parra, while arguing in the court, said the political rivalry has become order of the day as the ruling classes or the ruling parties are time and again blamed for framing their opponents who may be the greatest patriots or nationalists but in order to force them either to join the parties which are ruling and no stones are left unturned in order to force and coerce.
The counsel said the contest and winning of the DDC elections “has annoyed and anguished the other political rivals and parties of the petitioner and till now he has not even been allowed to take oath.”
He said that the petitioner “has been made scapegoat because of the political rivalry and that he has been a very great and good motivator for nationalism and the integrity of the country” and that the allegation of being an unscrupulous political leader having supported terrorists and secessionists is devoid of any evidence, merit and basis.
He claimed that there has been no evidence collected against the petitioner in this case and the facts and evidence is being fudged and padded to falsely implicate him in the case “so as to please the political masters”.
However, the prosecution presented before the court the investigation carried out so far by the police in the case registered after “reliable and confidential sources” said that some political functionaries misusing their position and have established clandestine connections and relations with different Pakistan-supported militant and secessionist organisations operating in Jammu and Kashmir for a number of reasons, including the immediate motive for furthering their political clout.
During the preliminary analysis of the phone, it has emerged that the accused has contacts across the border “suspected to be his associates and handlers in Pakistan” as well as with anti-national elements which include secessionists, militants and overground workers (OGWs) in the UK and other parts of the world, the counsel informed the court and also alleged that the accused has been in touch with a number of militants.
It was also pointed out in the court that the accused had asked for security cover only as a “smoke screen” and he had passed instructions not to search any visitors which were mainly anti-national elements and OGWs.
“The accused had visited foreign countries to have one-on-one meeting with agents from enemy countries. He travelled to Pakistan and met Syed Salahuddin, the self-styled chief of the banned Hizbul Mujahideen terror group,” the prosecution alleged.