Whether Killing of Hindu Religious Leaders Qualifies as Terrorist Act Is Debatable: Madras HC Grants Bail to UAPA Accused

Whereas granting bail to a person booked below the Illegal Actions Prevention Act, the Madras Excessive Court docket lately noticed that whether or not the killing of Hindu non secular leaders by itself can represent a terrorist act is debatable. The person, particularly Asif Musthaheen, was accused of desiring to trigger harm to leaders of Hindu organisations in and across the space the place he was residing. Allegedly, he was a staunch supporter of Islamic rule in India and Osama bin Laden and had been following the ideology of the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda.

Musthaheen had been denied bail by the Periods Decide of Erode district in April this 12 months. He was arrested on July 26, 2022, for the offences below sections 121, 122, and 125 of the IPC r/w 18, 18A, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA.

The case of the prosecution was that Musthaheen started accumulating info by social media concerning the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and obtained in contact with an ISIS member by an app known as Nekogram. He chatted on the app with the ISIS member utilizing the nickname ‘Abu Talha’. The message between the 2 which had been initially in Arabic, confirmed that he supposed to trigger menace to the unity and integrity of India and had deliberate to kill the chief of Hindu organisation for that.

Searching for reduction earlier than the excessive court docket, the counsel for Musthaheen submitted earlier than the excessive court docket that he had been in custody since July 2022 and that the character of the allegations was such that it didn’t warrant a chronic indefinite pre-trial detention.

He confused that the authorities had not recovered any incriminating supplies from Musthaheen apart from a cell phone which he had allegedly used to speak with the ISIS member.

The counsel additional argued that even when it was assumed that Musthaheen had certainly communicated with the ISIS member, it didn’t represent the offences alleged in opposition to him.

Quite the opposite, the Further Public Prosecutor stated that the highest court docket additionally had noticed {that a} prima facie case was made out in opposition to Musthaheen whereas dismissing the SLP filed by him difficult the order of dismissal of his earlier bail utility.

The excessive court docket bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan famous that the textual content messages proven between Musthaheen and the alleged ISIS member didn’t point out wherever that he had joined ISIS. The court docket additionally identified that the prosecution had not produced any proof to point out that the opposite particular person was an ISIS member.

“Due to this fact, we’re of the prima facie view that the offence below Part 38(2) of the UA (P) Act, has not been made out,” the bench held.

Additional, the bench famous that as regards the offence below Part 18 of the UAPA, it was the prosecution case that Musthaheen had conspired to commit terrorist acts in India in opposition to Hindu non secular leaders belonging to the BJP and RSS.

“The proof discloses that the conspiracy was to assault sure non secular leaders. The respondent has not spelt out how that will quantity to a terrorist act as outlined below Part 15 of the UA (P) Act,” the bench underscored.

The court docket confused that to convey an act below Part 15 of the UA (P) Act, the act should be carried out with an intent to threaten or more likely to threaten the unity, integrity, safety, financial safety, or sovereignty of India or with an intent to strike terror or more likely to strike terror within the individuals or any part of the individuals in India or any international nation.

Due to this fact, whereas permitting bail to Musthaheen, the bench, nonetheless, added that its observations concerning the prima facie case below Sections 18 and 38(2) of the UA (P) Act had been solely made by making an allowance for the broad chances of the case and to contemplate the bail utility.