National Investigation Agency vs Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali

It has also come in the statements of PW38 & PW39, who prepared balance sheets of accused’s firms/companies namely Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt. Limited, M/s Trison International, M/s Yasir Enterprises, M/s 3Y, M/s Kashmir Veneer Industries & M/s Three Star, that the accused never produced any supporting documents with respect to remittances received from NZ­International Dubai­ FZC, owned by him; and that he did not even inform about the actual execution of business despite asking of PW39. The fact that the balance sheets of M/s Trison International, M/s 3Y were forcefully got signed from the protected witness PW43 without providing him any document, has come in his statement. It has also come in the statement of PW44 that the audit report of the aforesaid companies were got signed from him without producing books for verification.” Again in paragraph 7.8 to 7.10 the Court observed:

5. The respondent carried the matter before the High Court by way of Criminal Appeal No.768 of 2018 under Section 21(1) read with Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The High Court noticed that after filing of the charge­sheet, accused Nos.11 and 12 had been granted regular bail, while accused Nos.1 and 2 had not been arrested. Rest of the accused, including the respondent (Accused No.10), were in judicial custody. The respondent (Accused No.10) was arrested on 17th August, 2017 and had been in judicial custody since then. His age, as indicated in the charge­sheet, was about 70 years. The High Court then adverted to paragraph 17.6.5 onwards of the charge­sheet [report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)] and summarized the allegations against respondent (Accused No.10) as follows:

(viii) TFCPL raised an unsecured loan of Rs.2,65,55,532/­ from the Directors of the company, i.e. the Appellant, his wife, and his three sons in the Financial Year (‘FY’) 2010­11 in the form of both cash and cheque and this was used to repay the secured loan of Rs.2,94,53,353/­ in the books of J&K Bank. The source of money with the Directors could not be explained satisfactorily by the Appellant.

(ix) The seizure from the house of the Appellant of a list of ISI officials and a letter from Tariq Shafi, proprietor of Al Shafi Group addressed to the PHC recommending grant of visa to the Appellant “shows his proximity with Pakistani Establishment”. It is stated that the name of Tariq Shafi figures in the document of foreign contributions seized from the house of the Appellant‟s cashier­cum­accountant Ghulam Mohd. Bhatt.”

6. The High Court also adverted to the accusations against respondent (Accused No.10) in paragraphs 17.9 and 17.10 of the charge­sheet, to the effect that CDRs relied upon by the 10 prosecution revealed that the accused persons were in contact “with each other, with some militants/OGWs (Over Ground Workers) and the hawala conduit” i.e. the respondent (Accused No.10) and the other accused, that the respondent (Accused No.10) was in constant contact on telephone with A­3, A­4, A­ 5 and A­6 and that A­3 to A­12 were in contact with each other, either directly or indirectly. In paragraph 17.10 of the charge­sheet, it is stated that respondent (Accused No.10) was a known hawala dealer and financer and a number of cases were registered against him, which were being investigated by the sister investigating agencies. The High Court, however, noted that the charge­sheet neither gave details of the other cases registered and being investigated against the respondent nor revealed the details thereof to the Court. The High Court also noted accusations against the respondent (Accused No.10) in paragraphs 18.10, 18.13 and 18.14, revealing the linkage between A­3 to A­10 and indicating clear meeting of minds of the said accused in hatching the conspiracy in 11 support of A­1 and A­2 and other Hurriyat leaders and other terrorist organizations in J & K.

84. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.”

D­75 Letter No. 22/NIA­III/CIV/CR/17/10275­76 dated 23.09.2017 from Sh. Kulbir Singh AIG (CIV), J&K PHQ, Srinagar to CIO NIA forwarding details of accused persons of the case. D­127 Letter No. I&O/IMS/T­ACT/3/2015 NIA/10011 dated 03.08.2017 from Sh. Vishwas Kumar Singh, (W­196), ASP, I&O, NIA New Delhi to CIO, NIA.

They are closely coordinating with each other and have formed a terrorist gang to achieve their common goal of secession from the Union of India by way of an armed rebellion.

7. The High Commission of Pakistan organizes functions and meetings in New Delhi, to which the Hurriyat leaders from Kashmir are invited and they are given instructions and funds so that the unrest in the Valley can be fuelled in an organized manner.

11. To further this conspiracy, the Hurriyat leaders, the terrorists/terror organizations and stone­pelters are working in tandem and they are getting financial and logistic support from Pakistan.”

18.3 They are all working in sync to achieve their greater goal. The nexus between the Pakistani agencies, Hurriyat leaders and terror organizations is amply substantiated by the chats retrieved from their email accounts, WhatsApp, Facebook profiles and Websites and also from the statements of the protected witnesses. Their nexus with hawala conduit, Zahoor Watali is also substantiated by the documentary and digital evidence.

The voice samples of Nayeem Khan and Farooq Ahmad Dar @ Bitta Karate have been forensically examined and the CFSL report has confirmed the match with their voices.

17.6.2 Funding from Terrorist Organisations based in Pakistan:

33. We fail to understand as to how this decision will be of any avail to the respondent. In our opinion, the Designated Court had rightly rejected the bail application after adverting to the relevant material/evidence indicative of the fact that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against the respondent is prima facie true.

37. A fortiori, we deem it proper to reverse the order passed by the High Court granting bail to the respondent. Instead, we 89 agree with the conclusion recorded by the Designated Court that in the facts of the present case, the respondent is not entitled to grant of bail in connection with the stated offences, particularly those falling under Chapters IV and VI of the 1967 Act.

38. Accordingly, this appeal succeeds. The impugned judgment and order is set aside and, instead, the order passed by the Designated Court rejecting the application for grant of bail made by the respondent herein, is affirmed.

39. All pending applications are also disposed of.

April 02, 2019.