High Court rejects bail plea of accused in terror-financing & narcotics; criticises trial court for erroneously granting bail to co-accused

STC NEWS MONITORING DESK
JAMMU, JULY 12 (STC): In a high-profile case involving cross-border narcotics trafficking and terror financing. the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu rejected the bail appeal of accused Arshad Ahmed Allaie, a resident of Sangam Shopian. At the same time, the court also criticized the trial court for erroneously granting bail to co-accused Fayaz Ahmed without applying the mandatory provisions of NDPS. The court recommended for administrative action while also recommended DGP to take appropriate action.
Notably, the case is being investigated under stringent provisions of the NDPS Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
It’s worth mentioning that the 260 grams of heroin and Rs.12 lakh in cash were recovered from the vehicle of the accused in 2019.
The court comprising Justices Shahzad Azeem and Sindhu Sharma dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 8/2025, challenging the 2024 order of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Designated TADA/POTA Court), which had denied bail to Allaie.
The court cited the “grave nature” of the allegations and observed that prima facie material indicates Allaie’s involvement in receiving large consignments of heroin smuggled from Pakistan and channeling proceeds through hawala networks to finance terrorism in Jammu & Kashmir.
Allaie was allegedly working under instructions from Pakistan-based terrorists and smugglers, coordinating with operatives like Naseer Ahmed and Aijaz Ahmed a.k.a. Ranga, both believed to be trained militants operating from Rawalpindi, reads the judgement.
Further disclosures during investigation revealed that funds were funneled to Hizbul Mujahideen operatives via a network involving hawala agents and local handlers.
“Involvement of the accused in transnational narco-terrorism with proceeds used to fund terror activities is a serious threat to national security. Granting bail in such cases would send a wrong signal,” the court ruled.
Meanwhile, the matter was listed for compliance by the Registrar General, and the prosecution was directed to pursue corrective legal steps against the co-accused’s bail. (STC)