NIA court rejects Reyaz Nengroo's bail plea in 2018 terror conspiracy case

11/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 10: The Special Judge, NIA Cases, Jammu, Prem Sagar has rejected the bail plea of Reyaz Ahmed Nengroo, an accused in the 2018 Jhajjar Kotli terror conspiracy case, holding that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, by themselves, cannot outweigh the gravity of the allegations and prima facie material placed before the court.
Nengroo is facing trial in RC Nos. 29 and 30/2018/NIA/DLI for offences under the RPC, Arms Act, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Explosive Substances Act and Indian Wireless Telegraph Act.
He was represented by Advocate I H Bhat, while K S Pathania, SPP, along with prosecutors Chandan Kumar Singh and Ashwani Verma, appeared for the NIA.
According to the prosecution case, three Jaish-e-Mohammad terrorists allegedly infiltrated Jammu and Kashmir during the intervening night of September 11 and 12, 2018, with an alleged plan to carry out terror attacks and wage war against the Government of India.
On September 12, 2018, a truck was intercepted near the Suketar police checkpoint on the Jammu-Srinagar National Highway. The alleged terrorists travelling in the vehicle opened fire and fled towards a nearby forest area. Nengroo and another accused were subsequently arrested, and arms, ammunition, explosives and other material were allegedly recovered, according to the case record.
The three alleged terrorists who escaped were later traced to Dhirti Kakaryal in Katra, where they were killed in an exchange of fire with security forces on September 13, 2018, the court record states.
The NIA alleged that Nengroo had provided his truck to his brother as part of a conspiracy to facilitate the movement of Pakistani JeM terrorists from the Kathua-Samba sector towards Kashmir.
Seeking bail, the accused submitted that he had remained in custody since September 12, 2018, and pointed out that the charge sheet cited 215 witnesses and 299 documentary exhibits, while only a limited number of witnesses had been examined.
The defence argued that the prolonged trial and incarceration warranted his release and also questioned the evidentiary basis of the prosecution case.
The NIA opposed the plea, relying on the restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The agency submitted that the accused could potentially influence witnesses, tamper with evidence or evade the judicial process if released.
The prosecution also submitted that Nengroo's elder brother, Ashaq Ahmed Nengroo, remained absconding and that a general warrant of arrest had been issued against him. It further relied on Call Detail Records, alleging that the accused persons were in contact with each other and were present at the relevant location at the time of the incident.
After considering the material placed on record, the court noted that Nengroo faces serious allegations under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA and found that the prosecution material and witness statements were sufficient, at the stage of bail, to form a prima facie view regarding the allegations.
The court held that the statutory parameters under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA were attracted and that the grounds raised by the accused did not justify grant of bail at this stage.
The court also noted that the trial was in progress and important witnesses were yet to be examined. It observed that the possibility of the accused influencing witnesses or affecting the proceedings could not be overlooked while considering the bail application.
The court further held that prolonged custody or delay in conclusion of the trial could not, in the circumstances of the case, be considered in isolation from the nature of the allegations and the material available on record.
Taking into consideration the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the statutory provisions and the overall circumstances of the case, the court rejected Nengroo's bail application.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty