Insight Online News
New Delhi, Sep 19 : The Delhi High Court (HC) has refused bail to Mohd. Amir Javed accused under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967, for his alleged involvement in planning terrorist activities in India. A Division Bench comprising Justices Siddharth Mridul and Anish Dayal refused the bail citing a reasonable possibility that Javed might have played a crucial role within a network of individuals with knowledge of a plot to initiate terrorist activities involving explosives and potential loss of life. The court said that the determination of whether Javed was the weakest link or a substantial part of this network would be established during the trial. Therefore, at this stage, the court believed that releasing him on bail would not be appropriate. Javed was apprehended in connection with this case on September 14, 2021, and he had spent approximately 20 months in custody when his appeal for bail was filed earlier this year. His argument was that he had not been released during this period. The court upheld the trial court’s order from May 18, which had denied Javed regular bail, and it dismissed his appeal challenging that decision. The case stemmed from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell in 2021, alleging a deep-rooted conspiracy within a terror module operating in India to carry out multiple explosive attacks. The prosecution contended that Javed was involved in a conspiracy to orchestrate IED bomb blasts as part of larger terror activities. The court said that a preliminary analysis of the evidence presented by the prosecution indicated that Javed faced serious charges related to conspiracy and possession of IEDs, as well as other arms and ammunition, including grenades and pistols, for alleged terror activities. The Bench said that the investigation revealed a vast conspiracy involving multiple individuals working for terror modules with the intention of executing bomb blasts in India. Javed was deemed an integral part of the recovery of arms and explosives, which, prima facie, did not warrant his release on bail at this stage.