No bail to woman accused in 2019 Pulwama attack

A special NIA court on Wednesday denied bail to Insha Jan, one of the accused in the 2019 Pulwama attack in which 40 CRPF personnel were killed. The court observed that sufficient material existed on record to presume that the accusations against her were prima facie true.

Presiding officer Prem Sagar, in a 15-page order dated August 20, rejected her counsel’s plea for bail on grounds of prolonged incarceration, alleged delays in the trial and her health condition.

The judge held that the Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) prevented her release on bail at this stage of the trial. Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA stipulates that an accused in custody cannot be released on bail if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true after reviewing the case diary or chargesheet.

Key Analysis and Detailed Timeline

On the delay argument, the court noted that the trial was ongoing and witnesses were being examined, and that releasing Jan might allow her to influence key witnesses, there Rejecting her plea on health grounds — Jan cited chronic dermatological problems, cervical spondylosis and chronic headaches requiring specialised medical treatment — the court held that her ailments were not life-threatening and did not warrant bail.

Jail authorities were directed to ensure she received all necessary medical care. The court clarified that its observations during the bail hearing would not prejudice the merits of the main criminal trial.

A resident of Harkipora village in Pulwama district of South Kashmir, Jan was arrested on March 3, 2020, along with her father, Peer Tariq Ahmad Shah, on charges of involvement in the terror conspiracy.

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

Read More: Minor raped, impregnated by school headmaster in Kishtwar, dies after stillbirth

According to the NIA chargesheet, Jan was allegedly involved in the terror conspiracy and she maintained continuous contact with Pakistani militant Muhammad Umar Farooq, who along with another Pakistani militant Mohd Kamran Ali, was involved in planning the attack.

Broader Impact and Sector Outlook

Both were subsequently neutralised in separate encounters Jan allegedly provided food, shelter, and other logistical support to these militants and other Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) operatives. A viral video of the suicide bomber Adil Ahmad Dar — which gained wide circulation after the February 14, 2019 attack — was allegedly recorded at her residence on January 28 and 29 of that year.

The defense contended that Jan had been falsely implicated, contending that her incarceration for over six years due the protracted nature of the trial, was unjustified. Of the 240 witnesses cited in the case, only 49 have been examined so far, the defence noted, arguing that the trial could extend for several more years.

The NIA, opposing the bail plea, highlighted the gravity of the charges, the evidence and the statutory restrictions under UAPA.

It described Jan as a “highly motivated terror associate” involved in a grave and serious offense, executed in a well-planned manner, indicating maturity of mind rather than innocence. The family's contact with JeM militants began in May 2018 through a neighbour, after which the militants began visiting regularly with arms and ammunition.

In January 2019, Pakistani militants Farooq and Dar, along with Sameer Ahmad Dar, stayed at their residence for several days with sophisticated arms and ammunition.

The NIA also presented evidence of communications between Jan and Farooq, including WhatsApp calls, voice notes, and photographs recovered from his mobile phone after his death.