On 20 August 2026, a special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court rejected the bail application of Insha Jan, who is facing trial as an accused in the 2019 Pulwama suicide attack that resulted in the deaths of 40 Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel. The court found that sufficient material existed on record to presume the accusations against her were prima facie true. The statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) was also cited as a reason for denying bail at this stage.
According to The Hindu, Insha Jan, a resident of Harkipora village in Pulwama district, Jammu and Kashmir, was arrested along with her father on 3 March 2020. She is charged under the Ranbir Penal Code, UAPA, Arms Act, and Explosive Substances Act. The court framed charges against her on 10 December 2022, and the trial is ongoing.
The NIA’s chargesheet alleges that Jan was involved in the conspiracy behind the Pulwama attack and maintained contact with Pakistani terrorist Muhammad Umar Farooq, who, along with another Pakistani national, was involved in planning the attack. The agency claims Jan provided food, shelter, and logistical support to Jaish-e-Mohammed operatives, and that the suicide bomber’s video was recorded at her house in late January 2019 as proceedings detailed.
The defence argued that Jan had been in custody for over six years, that the trial was delayed, and that her health condition warranted bail. They also stated that 49 out of 240 prosecution witnesses had been examined, and that none had directly or indirectly connected her to the offences. The defence further claimed that no incriminating material was recovered from her and that her implication was without reasonable ground as submissions indicated.
The NIA opposed the bail plea, citing the seriousness of the charges, the evidence collected, and the restrictions imposed by Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. The agency described Jan as a “highly motivated terror associate” and argued that her release could allow her to influence witnesses and hamper the process of justice. The court agreed, stating, “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.”
“There is sufficient evidence to presume that prima facie, the accusation against the applicant is true,” the court said, rejecting Jan’s bail application.
The court also addressed the issue of delay in the trial, finding that it did not constitute sufficient ground for bail in this case. It noted that the trial was underway and witnesses were being examined. The court further stated that Jan’s medical condition, including chronic dermatological problems and cervical spondylosis, did not warrant bail, but directed jail authorities to ensure she receives all necessary medical care as the order clarified.
The court emphasised that its observations were limited to the bail application and would not affect the merits of the ongoing criminal trial. The statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA was a key factor, as it prevents bail if the court finds reasonable grounds to believe the accusations are prima facie true as legal provisions require.
Note: This article is produced using AI-assisted tools and is based on publicly available information. It has been reviewed by The Quint's editorial team before publishing.