Srinagar, Oct 7: Jammu and Kashmir State Investigation Agency (SIA) has urged the J&K High Court to dismiss an application filed by PDP MLA Waheed-ur-Rehman Parra seeking permission to travel outside the Union Territory.
The SIA filed its response to the application of Parra, who is on bail in a terror-linked case registered against him in 2020, through its counsel and additional advocate general Mohsin S Qadri who termed the application as “baseless and meritless” owing to his involvement in “serious and heinous” offences.
“It may be true that the applicant has not violated any bail condition in the last three years. However, the present application, which has been precisely made to ‘allow’ the applicant to visit outside J&K without the permission of the trial court, would surely jeopardize the powers of the trial court in proper supervision, conduct and monitoring of trial besides speedy and effective proceedings,” the SIA counsel said.
Parra, who was released on bail in May 2022, recently moved an application in the Jammu and Kashmir High Court to seek permission to travel places outside J&K.
“That the fact of applicant having been on bail and having not misused or abused the same cannot be the justification for the applicant to claim as a matter of right that he be permitted to leave the territorial limits of UT of J&K.
“Being on bail and applying for leaving the territorial limits of UT of J&K are two different things. Merely because applicant has been released on bail does not mean that person is entitled to be allowed for leaving territorial limits of J&K, that too when the larger public interest and national security is as stake,” the counsel said.
He said the applicant has not come with “clean hands” before the court and has tried to “mislead” the court by sheer misrepresentation of facts.
“The applicant has previously filed a petition of identical nature, seeking identical relief which is still pending adjudication before the court…it is clear that the current application and the earlier petition (filed in 2023) are of identical nature.
“The applicant has not disclosed all the vital and material facts fairly and truly but has stated them in a distorted manner to mislead the court which has inherent powers and is duty bound to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its processes. Thus it is a fit case where application merits dismissal without examinations on merits,” the counsel said.
He also said the applicant by stating that no other application of similar nature is pending in any court has indulged in suppression of material facts which is nothing but practice of willful fraud with the court.
“The application not only merits dismissal but such an application requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court,” the counsel said.
He said the precondition of seeking prior permission before travelling outside J&K is a crucial ingredient which undoubtedly was engrafted as a condition for grant of bail, keeping in view the seriousness of offences involved, ought not to be diluted on mere inconvenience, if any caused, to the applicant accused in question.
“The application is baseless and meritless owing to involvement of the applicant in serious and heinous offences,” the SIA counsel said.
He said allowing the application would not amount to “modification” but in effect would mean “deletion” of the bail condition, and the same would amount to “review” of the earlier order of the court which is not permissible under the criminal jurisprudence.
“By allowing the application, the other conditions imposed on the applicant will become redundant. There exists every likelihood that the applicant would exploit the direction of this Court in his favour, in a manner that will nullify the operation of other two conditions — to appear before the investigating officer as the further investigation is continuing and his availability before the trial court on each and every hearing,” the counsel said.
He said no amount of surety may encourage the petitioner to participate in trial when the petitioner has reasons to believe that he may be convicted in view of prosecution having a case based on “strong and concrete” evidence against the accused.
He said the applicant enjoys the rights as any other citizen of the country and cannot ask for special treatment, when the trial court is within its powers to grant the permission as and when required.
“Besides, the condition is not ‘harsh’ since, he has been consistently allowed such permission within a time framework, given the seriousness of offences he has been found involved,” the counsel said.
He added that allowing the application would create a bad precedent that will be replicated by all similarly circumstanced accused resultantly thwarting the course of trials. (Agencies)
