Pak HC role in IHK uprising not proved: Delhi HC

NEW DELHI: A division bench of the Delhi High Court (HC) Thursday ruled that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) lacks evidence to establish the role of Pakistan High Commission in funding separatist activities in the Indian-held Kashmir.

The court further noted that the separatist organisation All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was not a banned outfit under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), reports the Indian media.

The observations came during the bail plea hearing of Srinagar businessman Zahoor Ahmad Wattali, the main accused in the Kashmir terror funding case, by the bench comprising Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Vinod Goel. The court granted the bail plea of Wattali, who has been charged by the NIA with getting money from Pakistan and providing it to separatist leaders in Jammu and Kashmir.

The case was registered after the uprising in the Valley following the killing of Hizbul Mujahideen commander Burhan Muzafar Wani in July 2016, which saw a clampdown on protesters which was condemned by both mainstream politicians and separatists. Nine leaders, including Hurriyat (G) Chairman Syed Ali Shah Geelani's son-in-law Altaf Fantosh, his former personal assistant Peer Saifullah and Jammu Kashmir Liberation Front leader Farooq Ahmad Dar, have been in judicial custody in Tihar Jail since 17 August 2016. They were arrested after multiple raids in Jammu and Kashmir and outside the Valley.

The court noted in its order that “it has emerged during the course of the hearing” of the case that neither the APHC nor any of its 26 constituent organisations are banned organisations “within the meaning of the UAPA.” The court noted in the order that the charges that the Pakistan High Commission’s first secretary-level officer was acting as a channel to receive funds from Pakistan and deliver them to Wattali could not be proved by the NIA. “It may be noted that at this stage in the chargesheet, no one in the PHC (Pakistan High Commission) is named. It is not asserted that NIA is unable to proceed against such individuals because of diplomatic immunity or status,” the court observed.