Jammu, August 22, 2026: A special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Jammu has rejected the bail plea of Insha Jan alias Insha Tariq, who is facing trial in connection with the 2019 Pulwama suicide attack that killed 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel. The court said there was sufficient material on record to prima facie believe that the accusations against her were true.
In a 15-page order delivered on Aug 20, Special Judge Prem Sagar said the restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) applied to Jan and prevented her release on bail at this stage. The order underlines the high threshold for securing bail under the anti-terror law when a court finds prima facie material supporting the prosecution's case.
Arrested In 2020, Charges Framed In 2022
Jan, a resident of Harkipora village in south Kashmir's Pulwama district, was arrested along with her father, Peer Tariq Ahmad Shah, on March 3, 2020. She is facing trial under provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code, UAPA, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act. The court framed charges against her on Dec 10, 2022.
According to the NIA chargesheet, Jan was allegedly part of the terror conspiracy and remained in constant contact with Pakistani terrorist Muhammad Umar Farooq. Farooq and another Pakistani terrorist, Mohd Kamran Ali, were allegedly involved in planning the Pulwama attack before security forces killed them in separate encounters, PTI reports.
The agency has also accused Jan of providing food, shelter and other logistical support to the two terrorists and other Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) operatives.
The NIA alleged that a video of suicide bomber Adil Ahmad Dar, which went viral after the Feb 14, 2019, attack, was recorded at Jan's house on Jan 28 and 29.
Defence Cites Long Custody, Health
The court considered arguments from both the defence and the NIA before rejecting the bail application. Jan's defence primarily cited her prolonged incarceration, the alleged delay in the trial and her health condition.
The defence submitted that Jan had been in custody for more than six years and argued that the prolonged trial made her continued incarceration unjustified.
According to the bail application, 49 of the 240 prosecution witnesses had been examined at the relevant stage. The defence argued that at the existing pace, the trial could continue for many more years.
It also claimed that the witnesses examined so far had not directly or indirectly connected Jan with the offences and that no incriminating material had been recovered from her.
The defence cited Jan's health as another ground for bail, claiming that she suffered from chronic dermatological problems, cervical spondylosis and chronic headache and required specialised medical treatment. Jan also claimed that her implication in the case was "totally false without any reasonable ground".
NIA Calls Jan A 'Terror Associate'
Opposing the plea, the NIA said Jan's bail application was devoid of merit and misconceived on facts and law. Given the seriousness of the allegations, the agency argued that the restrictions imposed by Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA applied to the case.
"The accused is a highly motivated terror associate involved in a grave and serious offence which she committed and gave effect to in a well-planned manner, reflecting her maturity of mind rather than innocence, indicating that her plea is more like a shield to dodge or dupe the arms of law," the NIA told the court.
The agency alleged that Jan and her father provided safe shelter, food and other logistical support to JeM terrorists at their house.
According to the NIA, Jan and her family were introduced to the JeM terrorists by her neighbour in May 2018. The agency said Farooq and Ali came to their house in June 2018 and the terrorists subsequently began visiting the house regularly with arms and ammunition.
"In January 2019, Farooq, Dar (suicide bomber) and Sameer Ahmad Dar came to her house with sophisticated arms and ammunition and stayed for many days," the NIA said.
The agency also relied on alleged communications between Jan and Farooq, including WhatsApp calls, voice notes and photographs recovered from Farooq's mobile phone after he was killed.
Court Says UAPA Bail Bar Applies
The court placed significant emphasis on Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. The provision restricts bail for a person in custody for offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act if, after examining the case diary or chargesheet, the court finds reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true.
"There is sufficient evidence to presume that prima facie, the accusation against the applicant is true," the court said while rejecting Jan's bail application.
The court also refused to accept the delay in the trial as sufficient grounds for granting bail in the circumstances. It noted that the trial was underway and witnesses were being examined.
"If the applicant is released on bail, there is every likelihood that she will influence the key witnesses which might hamper the process of justice," the judge said.
The ruling shows that the court gave greater weight at the bail stage to the prosecution material, the statutory restrictions under the UAPA and the possibility of witnesses being influenced than to the defence's arguments over prolonged custody.
Health Grounds Fail To Secure Bail
The court also held that Jan's medical condition did not justify her release on bail.
"The disease of the applicant/accused is not a life-threatening condition warranting urgent relief," the judge said.
Also Watch:
However, the court directed the jail authorities to ensure that Jan received all types of medical care.
The court clarified that its observations while deciding the bail application would not affect the merits of the main criminal trial, making clear that the findings at the bail stage should not be treated as a determination of Jan's guilt.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
