The Madras High Court emphasizes that a UAPA offense does not automatically result from the act of threatening individuals by asserting an association with ISIS terrorists.
Case Title: Mohamed Irfan v Union of India
Case No: Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2023
Decided on: 09th November, 2023
CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SUNDAR And THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
Facts of the Case
After being discovered in a car that the police had stopped on suspicion of having guns and other weapons, Mohamed Irfan filed an appeal contesting the rejection of bail. After taking over the investigation, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) registered offences under the Arms Act and the Indian Penal Code and obtained government approval to prosecute for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). According to the final report, Irfan and the prime accused were involved in anti-national activities while posing as Intellectual Students of India (ISI) and the Khilafah Party of India. The appellant was charged with supporting these organizations and taking part in talks on ISIS doctrines with the intention of establishing Islamic rule in India through a legal coup of the government.
Irfan, who identified himself as a meat vendor, said that his association with the lead accused was the only one and that the UAPA allegations were based on assumptions. On the other hand, the prosecution contended that witness statements demonstrated Irfan’s threats against individuals, claiming that both the principal accused, and his boss were terrorists affiliated with ISIS. Irfan allegedly made threats to murder a witness and asserted that he was involved in illicit financial transactions with the principal accused. The prosecution argued that Irfan should not be granted bail because of these actions.
Legal Provisions
The legal proceedings in this case are anchored in the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a legislative instrument designed to prevent and penalize unlawful activities, particularly those associated with terrorism and threats to national security.
Issues
In the legal interpretation of UAPA, is the specific act of threatening individuals while asserting an affiliation with ISIS terrorists sufficient to constitute an offense under the said legislation?
In the charges related to the Khilafah Party of India and ISI, is there a legal distinction between mere association with the prime accused and direct involvement with the alleged terrorist organization, as asserted by Mohamed Irfan in his defense?
Courts analysis and decision
The Court pointed out that, even if they are illegal, mere threats of affiliation with an ISIS terrorist do not always translate into a violation of Section 39 of the UAPA. The court emphasised that handling finances for the primary accused did not always imply a desire to support the terrorist organisation, and that the prosecution must demonstrate support for a terrorist organisation by independent evidence.
The court emphasised that bail should be granted based on reasons rather than a mere request and that the restrictions under Section 43D of the UAPA do not infringe upon fundamental human or constitutional rights. It also emphasised the need for a clear outline of the alleged terrorist act in cases involving conspiracy under the UAPA. The court granted release with specific conditions, stressing the need to avoid indefinite pre-trial imprisonment, given the paucity of evidence demonstrating the intention to support a terrorist organisation and the possibility of a lengthy trial.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Rupika Goundla