Delhi High Court: In an application filed to seek regular bail in a First Information Report (‘FIR’) registered under Sections 153-A/153-B/120-B/34/1741 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’) and Sections 3/10/13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’), a Single Judge Bench of Manoj Kumar Ohri, J. considered the fact that the name of the applicant surfaced after 22 days of registration of the FIR and directed to release him on regular bail.
Background
The applicant, who had been in custody since 22-02-2024, submitted that he was innocent and was not even present on the spot when the police conducted the raid. It was further contended that his name had falsely been roped in because the FIR did not mention the presence of any person other than the 4 co-accused persons, namely Shahid Badar, Irfan Ahmed, Md. Khalid, and Saif Nachan who were arrested from the headquarters of the Student Islamic Movement of India (‘SIMI’).
It was submitted that the name of the applicant surfaced for the first time on 21-10-2001 in the fourth supplementary statement of the police witnesses which had been recorded 22 days after the FIR was registered.
The applicant contended that his arrest was a case of mistaken identity as the person who had been named as an accused was Haneef Sheikh s/o Habibur Rahman. In contrast, the applicant’s name was Mohammad Hanif Mohammad Ishaque s/o Mohammad Ishaque, who worked as a teacher at the Municipal Corporation School Jalgaon, Maharashtra.
With regard to the applicant being declared as a proclaimed offender on 07-03-2002, the applicant contended that instead of serving the notice of proclamation at the applicant’s residence, it was served at the head office of SIMI which had already been sealed by the police on 29-09-2001.
The State vehemently opposed the bail application and contended that the applicant had been an active member of SIMI since 1998 and was a part of the editorial board of ‘Islamic Movement’ magazine. The Government of India banned SIMI on 27-09-2001 and after receiving secret information regarding anti-national speeches being delivered at the SIMI headquarters on the same night, a raid was conducted wherein four people were arrested. However, several associates along with the present applicant managed to escape.
The State submitted that during the raid, the ‘Islamic Movement’ magazine was seized among other highly provocative material and the applicant’s name reflected in the said magazine which the eyewitnesses also disclosed.
The State contended that the prosecution sanction required under Section 17 of UAPA, as it was applicable then, had already been obtained in 2001 and that the Trial Court had rejected the second regular bail application of the applicant vide order dated 27-05-2024.
It was also submitted that during the house search of the applicant, a photocopy of an old Voter ID card was recovered which showed the applicant’s name as Sheikh Md. Haneef. In 2008, the applicant got another Voter ID issued wherein his name was intentionally changed to Md. Haneef Ishaque.
The State contended that the applicant had been in touch with the relatives of the co-accused persons and persons accused in other UAPA cases who were involved in the 2006 Mumbai local train blast case. It was also said that the applicant was one of the members of a WhatsApp group called ‘Wahdat Bhuswal’ in which he had also sent multiple provocative messages promoting enmity between the religions.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that to carve out an offence under Section 153-A, IPC when dealing with a book or magazine, the intention to promote feelings of enmity or hatred between different classes of people has to be judged by looking at the language of the book and reading it as a whole without relying on strongly worded or isolated passages. Moreover, the Court said that the effect of the words must be judged from the standards of reasonable, strong-minded persons.
The Court noted that while in the FIR and the first statement, the police witnesses say that they came to know the names of the accused after their arrest, in the fourth statement, the same police witnesses said that they had known the identity of the applicant and the other co-accused because of their posting in that locality.
The Court said that as per the initial statements of police witnesses, no specific act of incitement had been pointed out regarding the applicant, which led to the registration of the original FIR. Further, the Court said that the applicant’s role was to help publish the magazine in the capacity of a proofreader and not as an author.
Considering the fact that the applicant’s name surfaced after 22 days of the registration of the FIR and that the co-accused persons had been enlarged on bail, the Court directed the release of the applicant on regular bail subject to him furnishing a personal bond amounting to Rs. 50,000/- with one surety of similar amount.
The Court, while disposing of the application, directed the applicant’s bail to be subject to him not leaving India without prior permission of the Court, provision of his mobile number to the Investigating Officer, providing details in case of change in residential address or contact details, not contacting the prosecution witnesses or tampering with evidence, and regular appearance before the Court concerned.
[Mohammad Haneef Mohammad Ishaque v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6382, Decided on 11-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Khalid Akhtar, Advocate Mohd. Shadan, Advocate Rafay Yazdani, Advocate Abdullah Akhtar, Advocate Maaz Akhtar
For Respondent — APP Aashneet Singh
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Section 196/197/61(2)/3(5)/208 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023