New Delhi: The Karnataka high court has ruled that attending “jihadi meetings” of organisations which are not outlawed by the government does amount to a “terrorist act”, LiveLaw has reported.
A division bench of Justice B. Veerappa and Justice S. Rachaiah was hearing a bail petition filed by one Saleem Khan, against whom a case was registered in 2020 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Khan, according to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), has been associated with the Al-Hind Group, which is allegedly involved in terrorist activities.
Granting bail to Khan, the court said, “Mere attending meetings and becoming member of Al-Hind Group, which is not a banned organisation, as contemplated under the Schedule of UA(P) Act, and attending jihadi meetings, purchasing training materials and organising shelters for co-members is not an offence as contemplated under the provisions of Section 2(k) or Section 2(m) of UA(P) Act.”
However, in the same case, the court refused to grant bail to Mohd. Zaid, by ruling that he had been an “active participant” in an offence, as a member of a terrorist gang, which was linked to ISIS.
Background
On January 10, 2020, based on the information received from the Central Crime Branch of Bengaluru Police, Suddaguntepalya Police Station in the city registered a first information report (FIR) against 17 persons, including Khan and Zaid.
They were booked under Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups), 121A (waging, or attempting to wage war), 120B (criminal conspiracy), 122 (collecting arms with intention of waging war), 123 (corrupt practices), 124A (sedition), 125 (waging war against any Asiatic Power in alliance with the Government of India) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), 18 (punishment for conspiracy) and 20 (punishment for being a member of terrorist gang or organisation) of UAPA.
Also read: It’s Time for the Government To Redeem Itself and Repeal the UAPA
Following this, the NIA stepped in and re-registered the FIR against 17 persons. Meanwhile, Khan was arrested on January 20, 2020, and Zaid was detained under a body warrant on March 9, 2020. A chargesheet was filed against the accused on July 13, 2020 under various sections of IPC, Arms Act and UAPA.
The accused’s attempts to secure bail at a special NIA court failed, after the court rejected their plea on December 29, 2020, following which they moved the Karnataka high court.
Courtroom exchange
Appearing for the petitioners, advocate S. Balakrishnan had told the court that it was indeed true that the petitioners were members of the Al-Hind Group, but pointed out that the said outfit was not any banned terrorist organisation. He had also told the court that no incident had taken place during the six-month period – July 7, 2019 to January 10, 2020 – mentioned in the FIR involving the accused.
On the prosecution’s charges of the accused being involved in terrorist activities, Balakrishnan had submitted to the court that it had failed to produce even an “iota of evidence” to that effect, and affirmed that the accused were not members of ISIS.
According to LiveLaw, he also found fault with the prosecution’s application of Section 18 (punishment for conspiracy) of UAPA, noting that there must be some material abetting, advising, inciting and directing anyone to do a terrorist act. He had also asserted that the accused were not linked to any outlawed organisations, which then would have attracted the provisions under UAPA against them.
“The prosecution has failed to prove anything on record against the accused,” Balakrishnan had submitted to the court.
In response, the NIA, through special public prosecutor P. Prasanna Kumar, reiterated its charges against the accused, stating that they had attended several “conspiracy meetings” leading to offences detailed in the FIR. Hence, the NIA pressed for the rejection of their bail pleas.
After hearing the arguments from both sides, the court said:
“In the present case, the prosecution has not produced any material, as could be seen on examination of the charge sheet, against accused No.11 [Saleem Khan] about his involvement in terrorist act or being a member of terrorist gang or organisation or training terrorism.”
The court then went on to say that effort should be made “to strike a balance” between the mandate of UAPA law (particularly Section 43D of the Act) and the rights of the accused.
Granting bail to Khan, the court ordered that he be released on bail, subject to executing a bond of Rs 2 lakh, with two solvent sureties of the same amount.
However, in the case of Zaid, the court ruled that he was associated with those linked to ISIS, which is a banned organisation as per the provisions of UAPA.