Senior PDP leader and close aide of former Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Waheed-ur-Rehman Para has approached the J&K High Court to quash the FIR against him by the J&K Police, which cited violation of fundamental rights Is. The Constitution and the “likeness” of the allegations are also being probed by the NIA.
In the petition, Para’s counsel Shariq Reyaz submitted that his client was investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as well as the Counter Intelligence (Kashmir) wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Police for different offenses prescribed by him. is a violation of the rules. Norms under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Justice Vinod Chatterjee Kaul, after hearing arguments on a petition challenging the framing of charges in the police case by a designated court last month, last week issued notice to the Counter Intelligence (Kashmir), or CIK, to file its reply within a To be. Month.
Reyaz, in his plea of two FIRs and two chargesheets filed by the NIA and CIK, drew up a table to draw parallelism in the offenses being probed by the two investigating agencies separately.
In his plea, the counsel termed the framing of charges on the chargesheet filed by the CIK by the designated court in Srinagar a “mechanical exercise” and referred to the Supreme Court’s judgments “in which a word of caution has been administered in the trial”. The courts after carefully examining the evidence and analyzing the same frame charge under the rigorous scheme of UAPA.” The counsel also noted that the FIR by CIK is “clearly tainted with malice in law, only serving a collateral purpose of detaining the petitioner (para) illegally and unlawfully in gross abuse of police power”. with a constitutional guarantee guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.
Reyaz submitted before the High Court that “the impugned investigation/prosecution in the present case, if allowed to continue, would not only be subject to the very mandate of the Constitutional guarantee guaranteed to the petitioner under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India”. would be an offense against, but it is also certain to result in a serious miscarriage of justice.”
“Therefore, the impugned FIR to prevent miscarriage of justice … is liable to quash as well as the investigation initiated against the petitioner and initiated in pursuance thereof.”
Article 14 states that the State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.
Riyaz also challenged the sanction of prosecution, which is a mandatory requirement under UAPA given by the Home Secretary of Jammu and Kashmir, saying that under the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act of 2018, the law and order of the Center and the concerned officer. subject is. is not competent to issue any such order.
“Certainly the sanction for prosecution in the present case is not by the Central Government acting through the Administrator but by the Government of Jammu and Kashmir through its Principal Secretary (Home) … Presumable, the petition states, may be canceled/set to nil under appropriate orders.
The designated court had last July framed terror charges against Parra on a police chargesheet that claimed he was an asset to Pakistan-based terror groups and his 13-year journey as a journalist and politician since 2007. Pseudo’s saga”. deceit and double behavior”.
The eight-page order said “prima facie there is sufficient evidence against the accused for the alleged offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the Indian Penal Code.”
The special NIA judge charged him with being a member of a terrorist group, raising funds for them and aiding an organisation. He was also charged under sections related to waging war against the country, spreading discontent against the government and criminal conspiracy.
read all breaking newshandjob breaking news And coronavirus news Here
.