NIA court rejects bail to Bathindi IED case accused, cites prima facie material, witness concerns

03/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 2: A Special NIA Court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of Nadeem Ayoub Rather, an accused in the 2021 Bathindi IED conspiracy case, observing that the material on record prima facie indicated his alleged involvement in the conspiracy and that his release at this stage could have a bearing on the remaining trial and witnesses.
Special Judge NIA Cases, Jammu, Prem Sagar dismissed the bail plea on September 2 in case RC-04/2021/NIA/JMU, registered for offences under Sections 120-B, 121-A and 122 of the IPC, Sections 18, 18-B, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.
Rather, a resident of Shopian district, has been in custody since July 1, 2021.
The case relates to the interception of accused Nadeem Ul Haq by Jammu and Kashmir Police in the Bathindi area of Jammu on June 27, 2021, when he was allegedly found carrying an Improvised Explosive Device (IED).
According to the prosecution case, the IED was allegedly intended to target civilians and security forces as part of a larger conspiracy to wage war against the Government of India.
Rather and another accused, Talib-ur-Rehman, were subsequently arrested on July 1, 2021. The investigation was later taken over by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
During the investigation, the prosecution alleged that Rather had become radicalised through social-media platforms and had established contacts with Pakistan-based handlers associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and The Resistance Front (TRF).
The NIA alleged that Rather communicated with such handlers through Facebook, WhatsApp and other online platforms and was involved in dissemination of extremist material and in establishing links between local youth and foreign-based handlers.
It was further alleged that Rather created and administered several WhatsApp groups, including "Al-Jihad Jammu & Kashmir", "Struggle Till Freedom" and "Ghazi Official", which were allegedly used for circulation of terrorist propaganda, glorification of slain militants and dissemination of provocative audio-visual material.
The prosecution relied upon digital evidence, including WhatsApp chats, social-media activity and group communications, which it claimed reflected Rather's alleged association with Pakistan-based handlers and his purported role in radicalisation, recruitment and coordination.
Appearing for the accused, Advocate H U Bhat sought bail primarily on the ground of prolonged incarceration and the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21.
The defence submitted that Rather had remained in custody for nearly five years and that only a portion of the prosecution witnesses had so far been examined.
It was also argued that no incriminating recovery had been effected from the accused pursuant to his disclosure statement. The defence relied upon judgments of the Supreme Court and High Courts concerning prolonged incarceration and the right to speedy trial.
The NIA opposed the bail plea through Special Public Prosecutor K S Pathania, assisted by Public Prosecutors Chandan Kumar Singh and Ashwani Verma.
The prosecution submitted that the allegations were serious and supported by prima facie material. It further contended that the trial was progressing and that the statutory restrictions governing grant of bail in cases under the UAPA were required to be considered.
The court noted that charges in the case had already been framed on March 1, 2023 and that the trial was underway.
On consideration of the material placed before it, the court observed that the record prima facie indicated the applicant's alleged involvement in furtherance of a conspiracy relating to unlawful activities.
The court also took note of the fact that several relevant prosecution witnesses were yet to be examined.
While considering the apprehension raised by the prosecution, the court observed that release of the accused at this stage could create a likelihood of influencing key witnesses and thereby affect the course of justice.
The court also considered the nature and gravity of the allegations, the prima facie material available on record and the larger interests involved in the case.
In view of the circumstances, the court held that the applicant had not made out a case for grant of bail and accordingly dismissed the application.
The court, however, clarified that the observations made while deciding the bail application were confined to the adjudication of the bail plea and would not prejudice the merits of the main case or the final determination of the trial.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty