Support to terrorist organization monetarily or in the form of networking prohibited; Delhi High Court rejects bail appeal of LeT accused

Delhi High Court: An appeal was filed challenging the impugned order dated 02-08-2024 passed by Additional Sessions Judge wherein it rejected the appellant’s application seeking bail. A division bench of Prathiba M Singh, and Amit Sharma, JJ., held that there is no need for any interference with the bail appeal as the evidence prima facie establishes the culpability of the appellant.

FIR was registered under Sections 120-B, 121 & 121-A of Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) and Sections 17, 18, 18-B, 38 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”). The charge sheet was filed on 13-05-2022, against a total of 7 accused persons, including the appellant. The broad case of the National Investigation Agency (hereinafter “NIA”) is that credible information was received by the Central Government that Lashkar-e-Taiba (“LeT”), a proscribed organisation under the UAPA, was establishing a widespread network of ‘over-ground workers’ and operators for providing support for its terrorist activities in India, including in Jammu and Kashmir. Accused A1, Accused A-2, Accused A-3 and Accused A-4, the Appellant herein, are all alleged to be associates and running the network of over ground workers of LeT in India.

It was also alleged that pursuant to the conspiracy to recruit individuals as OGWs for LeT and commit terrorist acts in India, the said accused persons were in contact with their Pakistan based handler who is an operative of LeT. As per the chargesheet, Accused A1 was a human rights activist who was running an organization called Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society which was engaged in supporting various protestors in Kashmir and also in making provocative speeches. Accused A-1, Accused A-2 and Accused A-3 are alleged to have been passing sensitive information in respect of vital installations of the Indian security forces, and the Accused A-2 and Accused A-3 received monetary benefits in return for providing such sensitive information. It was also the case of NIA that the accused persons were in contact with the handler via a WhatsApp account that was recovered from the Appellant. Accused A-5 and Accused A-6 had provided the appellant with pseudonymous bank accounts along with corresponding phone numbers all of which were obtained fraudulently. Thus, the case against the Appellant is based upon, inter alia, the connection of the Appellant with the handler, who is also in turn alleged to be connected with all the other accused persons.

During investigation, multiple mobile phones and SIM cards were seized from the possession of the appellant. During verification of these SIM cards, it was revealed that these SIM cards were obtained fraudulently on the directions of the appellant, and they were paid in their bank accounts by his accounts. Investigation also revealed that the appellant was using multiple pseudonym bank accounts procured for layering and channelling money. Other evidences like oral, documentary and material evidences were also collected that establishes the complicity of appellant in the instant case.

The appellant was thereby arrested and had twice preferred an application Section 439 of CrPC seeking bail before Additional Sessions Judge which have been rejected. Thereafter, the appellant preferred a third bail application which was also rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge vide the impugned order. Assailing this, the present appeal was filed.

The Court noted that it is a matter of common public knowledge that there are several terrorist organizations which are waging a war against India and are involved continuously in planning and execution of terrorist activities within India. The UAPA is a statute which, therefore, permits various measures to be taken against terrorists and terrorist organisations including freezing of assets for the purpose of protecting the country and for prevention of terrorist acts from taking place.

The Court further noted that on perusal of Sections 18, 38 and 39 of the UAPA, it was clear that facilitating commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, would be violative of Section 18 of UAPA. Thus, upon a conjoint reading of Sections 15 and 18 of UAPA, it is clear that preparation for commission of a terrorist act would also include an act which is likely to cause death, loss or damage. Any support to a terrorist organization either monetarily or otherwise in the form of networking, meetings, etc. is clearly prohibited. Moreover, when a terrorist organization like LeT is involved, which has already taken responsibility for various terror attacks in India, the tacit or active support to such an organization cannot be condoned in any manner.

The Court observed that the evidence in the present case shows that the prosecution has been able to obtain material which reveals that the Appellant was prima facie conspiring with Accused A-5 and Accused A-6 as also Accused A-2 and Accused A-3. The chain of events from the purchase of mobile numbers under a fraudulent name, transfer of the SIM cards through Accused A5 and Accused A6 to the Appellant, use of the said SIM card in Gopalganj, Bihar, activation of WhatsApp in Gopalganj, Bihar by receiving of OTP, recharge of the same through a mobile phone which was in the possession of the Appellant clearly establishes the chain of events linking the appellant. Thus, it is clear that there is, prima facie, sufficient other evidence on record which is contemporaneous in nature and which ties the appellant.

Thus, the Court held that it cannot go into detailed scrutiny of documents at the stage of bail application and there is sufficient material available on record to show that accusation against the accused appears to be prima facie true. Thus, the impugned order does not warrant any interference.

[Zafar Abbas v NIA, CRL.A. 785/2024, decided on 10-01-2025]

Judgment by: Justice Prathiba M Singh

Advocates who appeared in this case :

Mr. Sanjiv Jha, Mr. Vikash K. Singh, Ms. Tusha Chawla, Mr. Sarthak Singh and Mr. Sachin Bhatt, Advocates for appellants

Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP with Mr. Jatin, Mr. Aniket Kumar, Mr. Amit Rohila, Advs with Insp. Sonu, CIO

Buy Penal Code, 1860   HERE