InCrl. A. 286/202 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court upholds order denying bail to accused charged with providing shelter to terrorists
Justice Siddharth Mridul & Justice Anish Dayal [22-09-2022]

Read Order:Suhail Ahmad Thokar V. National Investigation Agency

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, September 26, 2023: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the bail appeal of an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly providing shelter to members of terrorist organizations.

The present appeal had challenged the order dated January 7, 2023, passed by the Special Judge (NIA), related to a case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under Sections 120B, 121A, 122, and 123 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), as well as under Sections 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38, and 39 of the UAPA. The order in question pertained to the dismissal of the bail application filed on behalf of the appellant.

The prosecution's case revolved around the registration of an FIR, following an intelligence received, regarding a larger conspiracy taking shape in the Kashmir valley. According to the prosecution, this conspiracy had dual dimensions, both in the physical realm and the digital domain, and was allegedly orchestrated by proscribed terrorist groups, including Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-E-Mohammed (JeM), Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), Al-Badr, and others. It was further claimed that these terrorist groups, in collaboration with their facilitators and leaders based in Pakistan, as well as their Over-Ground Workers within India, were actively involved in influencing and radicalizing vulnerable local youth. The prosecution alleged that this conspiracy was hatched following the revocation of Article 370, with the primary objective of reigniting acts of terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir and other parts of India. According to their case, the appellant played an active role in providing shelter to members of the aforementioned terrorist organizations and their associates within his residence, with the assistance of his acquaintances. Consequently, the appellant was arrested on October 20, 2021, and a chargesheet was filed against him and co-accused individuals.

The division bench of Justice Siddharth Mridul and Justice Anish Dayal observed that at the stage of bail under the UAPA it is a well-established practice that a comprehensive or in-depth examination of the evidence is not required. Instead, the court's role is to establish findings based on general probabilities regarding the accused's potential involvement in the alleged offense.

The bench noted that upon the appellant's arrest, two mobile phones were confiscated from his possession. An analysis report of the digital data extracted from these seized mobile phones, conducted by Cert-In, revealed the presence of images associated with deceased militants and terrorist organizations.

The bench further took note of the appellant's disclosure statement, wherein the appellant affirmed that he had a previous association with the militant Rouf Dar. Additionally, he disclosed that he had provided assistance to militants Rouf Dar and Walid by arranging accommodation for them in his hometown.

The bench emphasized that the UAPA mandates proactive measures against organizations that present a threat to national security. Once an organization is designated as unlawful under the UAPA, any individual associated with it can be prosecuted for offenses outlined within the Act, in addition to any relevant criminal statutes.

The bench placed reliance on Arup Bhuyan versus State of Assam and Anr. [LQ/SC/2023/329], where the Supreme Court had expressed the view that mere membership in a banned organization constitutes an offense under the UAPA.

Thus, the court concluded that, after carefully considering the provisions of the UAPA and evaluating the material included in the charge-sheet, along with a collective assessment of the evidence and a preliminary analysis of its probative value, there were prima facie reasonable grounds to believe in the truth of the allegations against the appellant.

Accordingly, the present appeal was dismissed.