NATIONAL

An ex-Jamaat employee who is in numerous cases gives up

In relation to an attempted jailbreak in 2019, the former spokesman of the outlawed Jamaat-e-Islami, who was involved in many legal matters, turned himself in to police on Sunday, the police said.

They said that Zahid Ali, also known as Ali Mohammad Lone, turned himself in to the Srinagar police. “The accused person, namely Ali Mohd Lone and Advocate Zahid Ali, son of Habibullah Lone, a resident of Nihama Pulwama, who was involved in Case FIR No. 19/2019 under Section 13 of the UAP Act,” turned himself in at the relevant police station and was taken into custody on May 16 in connection with the jailbreak case, according to a police spokesman.

Additionally, he was charged with other offenses under the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC) at the Rainawari Police Station. According to the spokesperson, the accused was reportedly complicit in a plot and committed crimes at Srinagar Central Jail in 2019 that included stone-throwing, riots, arson, and an attempt to get out of jail.

According to a former JeI head, the group will run in elections in the future if the Center reverses the ban that was placed on it in 2019.

After being held under the Public Safety Act for five years, Lone was freed from jail in April. The union territory government was ordered by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to compensate the former spokesperson of the outlawed Jamaat-e-Islami movement for his unlawful arrest under the Public Safety Act, and this compensation was due a month ago.

Lone, a longtime Jamaat-e-Islami spokesman, was first detained in March 2019, but the court overturned his preventative custody in July of the same year. He was, nonetheless, placed under arrest once again for six days under preventative legislation, but the court overturned the ruling in 2020. He was arrested under preventative legislation once again in three months, but the court again overturned the imprisonment in 2021.

Under the PSA, which the court revoked last month, he was scheduled for the fourth time in 2021.

“Now that three court rulings that invalidated the petitioner’s preventive detention three times prior have not been given even a cursory look, how can the SSP Pulwama, respondent No. 2—the District Magistrate Pulwama—and respondent No. 1—the Government of UT of J&K—claim that the petitioner’s fourth preventive detention is the result of an equitable and transparent process based on altered circumstances?” the court wrote in its thirteen-page ruling.

Related Articles

Back to top button