A Delhi court on February 18 granted bail to an accused in the Pulwama terror attack case as the National Investigation Agency (NIA) failed to file the charge-sheet within the prescribed statutory period. In his order, Special NIA Judge Parveen Singh observed that Yusuf Chopan was entitled to statutory bail.

The court asked Chopan to furnish a personal bond of Rs 50,000 with one surety bond of the like amount.

In his application for bail, Chopan had pointed out that he had been in custody for 180 days and the probe agency had not yet filed the charge-sheet despite the time it was given was elapsed on February 11, 2020. 

The NIA admitted that it couldn't submit the charge-sheet due to the “want of sufficient evidence”, and said further probe was being conducted in the case.

However, the court rejected the NIA's contention and granted bail to Chopan with certain conditions, including that he shall join the investigation and attend the court whenever required in accordance with the conditions of the bond executed by him.

The court also directed him not to commit any similar offence and shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case nor tamper with the evidence.

Chopan is suspected to have provided logistical support to the terrorists who carried out the attack and the bail granted to him is seen as a major setback to the Centre and security agencies.

Forty personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) has been killed in a terror attack orchestrated by the Jaish-e-Mohammed in South Kashmir's Pulwama district.

The incident took place when a CRPF convoy, consisting of around 2,500 personnel, was attacked by a suicide bomber who rammed a car laden with explosives into one of the buses on the Jammu-Srinagar highway.

Twelve days after the attack, India carried out air strikes at Balakot, inside Pakistan, destroying a major terror camp of the JeM and killing over 250 terrorists.

Disclaimer: Comments posted here are the sole responsibility of the user and do not reflect the views of THE WEEK. Obscene or offensive remarks against any person, religion, community or nation are punishable under IT rules and may invite legal action.