Justice to Kashmiri Pandits begins! NIA court orders to frame charges against LeT founder, Yasin Malik others under UAPA

The Court also ordered framing of charges against Kashmiri politician and former MLA Rashid Engineer, businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, Bitta Karate, Aftab Ahmad Shah, Avatar Ahmad Shah, Naeem Khan, Bashir Ahmed Bhat, alias Peer Saifullah and several others under various sections of Indian Penal Code and UAPA including criminal conspiracy, waging war against the country, unlawful activities, etc.

NewsBharati    19-Mar-2022 13:42:58 PM
Total Views |
New Delhi, Mar 19: A National Investigation Agency (NIA) court has ordered framing of charges against 15 accused, including Kashmiri separatist leaders Yasin Malik and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) founder Hafiz Saeed in a case related to terrorist and secessionist activities that disturbed J&K in 2017.
 
Yasin Malik 
 
The Court also ordered framing of charges against Kashmiri politician and former MLA Rashid Engineer, businessman Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, Bitta Karate, Aftab Ahmad Shah, Avatar Ahmad Shah, Naeem Khan, Bashir Ahmed Bhat, alias Peer Saifullah and several others under various sections of Indian Penal Code and UAPA including criminal conspiracy, waging war against the country, unlawful activities, etc.
 
 
NIA special Judge Praveen Singh in an order passed on March 16 said, "The above analysis reflects that the statements of witnesses and documentary evidence have connected almost all the accused with each other and to a common object of secession, to the commonality of means they were to use, their close association to terrorist/terrorist organisations under the guiding hand and funding of Pakistani establishment".
 
 
 
Passing the order, the court also noted that none of the accused has argued that individually they do not have a secessionist ideology or agenda or that they have not worked for secession or advocated for the secession of the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir from the Government of India.
 
However, the Court also clarified that whatever has been expressed in this order is a prima facie opinion although, a detailed discussion of the evidence had to be done because the arguments were advanced by both sides in much detail.
.