Arrested After Bail, PDP Leader Waheed Para Remanded to Custody

The PDP leader was granted bail by a NIA court in a case of terror funding and was detained immediately after.

(Photo:Waheed Ur Rehman Para/Facebook)

After Waheed-ur-Rehman Para was taken in for questioning, the PDP youth wing leader was reportedly arrested and remanded to police custody till 18 January, 2021, by a Jammu court in a terror-related case, PTI reported.

Soon after Para was granted bail by a NIA court in a terror-funding case, the leader was detained for questioning in another terror-related case on 9 January, Saturday, evening, The Indian Express reported.

“We had received a message from Counter Intelligence Kashmir (CIK) to collect Para from jail, as he was wanted by them for questioning in connection with FIR No. 31 registered with them in Srinagar,” a senior jail official had told the newspaper.

While the senior official or the counter intelligence wing did not disclose the details of the FIR under which Para was detained, a source told the newspaper that it was a terror funding case. “It is an open FIR and Waheed’s name is not mentioned. Several PDP chief Mehbooba Mufti’s relatives and aides have already been questioned in this case,” a source said.

PDP Chief Mehbooba Mufti asked what law and for what crime had he been arrested and said this was a brazen contempt of court.

What Case Was Para Granted Bail for?

Arrested by the NIA on 25 November 2020, Para was picked after a disclosure statement by Hizbul Mujahideen’s Naveed Baba.

Credited to be instrumental in the revivial of the PDP in South Kashmir, he was arrested three days after filing his nomination for the District Development Council Elections from the Pulwama seat. He won the elections while still in custody.

While granting him bail, the judge said, “Offences, particularly falling under Unlawful Activities Act (UAPA), are not prima facie made out against the applicant/accused.” He was asked to furnish personal bond and surety of Rs 1 lakh each. Regarding the evidence that the NIA had on Para, the judge said that the main and supplementary charge sheet did not have a ‘reference of the present applicant’. Regarding the disclosure statement that named him, the judge said that the value of it was seriously hit by Section 25 of Evidence Act, that states that a disclosure statement has zero value until it leads to recovery of evidence.