In Crl. A. 468/2023 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court denies bail to accused in ‘terrorist conspiracy’ case, citing prima facie involvement
Justice Siddharth Mridul & Justice Anish Dayal [18-09-2023]

Read Order: Mohd. Amir Javed V. State (NCT of Delhi)

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 19, 2023: In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has denied bail to an accused/appellant in a case involving a terrorist conspiracy to carry out IED blasts. The Court cited "reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations made against the appellant are prima facie true”.

The case originated from an FIR filed, based on intelligence indicating a terror module planning a series of IED blasts. The module, suspected to have connections in various parts of India, including Uttar Pradesh and Maharashtra. This information was cross-verified and substantiated through multiple sources, revealing a deep-seated conspiracy by the terror module and its operatives within India to carry out the planned explosions. Following this, an extensive investigation was initiated, leading to the registration of an FIR, under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). On September 14, 2021, based on gathered intelligence, synchronized operations were conducted in various states, resulting in the apprehension of multiple suspects. Subsequently, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant and other accused individuals, for charges under Section 120B IPC, Section 18, 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA Act), Section 25 of the Arms Act, and Section 4, 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

Top of Form

The prosecution pointed out the deposition of witnesses under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. According to these testimonies, a consignment containing arms and explosives was stored in a bag at the appellant's residence. Subsequently, the consignment was transported to Prayagraj by Humaidur Rehman, who was identified as the appellant's relative. It was revealed that the appellant was informed about the task on September 5, 2021, and was actively involved in concealing the consignment, even providing his father's car for transportation.

The division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal noted that a surface analysis of the evidence presented by the State would indicate that the accused was primarily charged with conspiracy, along with other co-accused, related to the possession of IEDs, arms, ammunition including grenades and pistols for the alleged terrorist activities. According to the State's case, various pieces of evidence pointed to the knowledge of a bag containing IEDs, hand grenades, and weapons. This bag had reportedly passed from one co-accused to another and eventually reached Humaidur Rehman, who subsequently handed it over to the appellant. The bag was allegedly kept at the appellant's residence until it was returned to Humaidur Rehman.

The bench referred to the case of Ghulam Mohd. Bhat v. National Investigating Agency [LQ/DelHC/2019/3600], where, in dealing with an appeal under the National Investigation Agency Act, related to a bail issue, it was observed that the court's determination at this stage was limited in scope. The court's task was to examine whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant were 'prima facie true’.

The bench observed that given the present stage of the case where the charges have not yet been framed, and considering the nature of the offense the appellant was accused of, it would be challenging to conclude that the appellant should be granted regular bail at this point.

“There is a reasonable possibility that the appellant was one of the links in the network of people who were cognizant of the plan to trigger terrorist activity by using such bombs and explosives and causing loss of life. The fact that he was the weakest link or a substantial link is an issue which would be proven through trial by the prosecution,” said the division bench.

The bench noted that at this stage, it was not prima facie evident that the appellant was merely an intermediary without knowledge of either the contents of the bag he was asked to secure at his residence or the intentions of the various co-accused who entrusted him with the bag and maintained contact with him. It would be reasonable to assume that someone entrusted with a bag to be kept at their residence would inquire about and confirm the contents of that bag.

Therefore, the bench, after considering the charge-sheet, the totality of the material, based on a broad probability regarding the involvement of the appellant, the documents presented by the investigating agency, and a surface analysis of probative value, concluded that the conditions specified in Section 43D (5) of the UAPA Act were satisfied.

Consequently, the appeal for bail was dismissed.