Justice Subramonium Prasad, Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, Delhi High Court
Trying To Recruit Youth For Propagating Ideology Of ISIS: Delhi High Court Refuses To Grant Bail To UAPA Accused
|The Delhi High was of the view that the Trial Court’s Order of detention of the accused is not mechanical in nature.
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant bail to a man who has been accused of trying to recruit youth for propagating the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal filed by the accused under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act), challenging the Orders of the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), extending the period of detention under Section 43D(2) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) by 25 days and thereafter, remanding him to judicial custody.
A Division Bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathanshankar observed, “This Court has perused the entire material on record. The material on record indicates that the three accused, including the Appellant herein, are active members of the ISIS. They are propagating the ideology of the ISIS and trying to recruit youth for furtherance of the objectives of ISIS in banned organisations. At the time when the remand orders were being considered, material was being unearthed to establish that the accused, including the Appellant herein, were conducting recce at various Indian cities including, but not limited to, Delhi, Mumbai, Ahmedabad, Surat etc for terrorist activities.”
The Bench was of the view that the Trial Court’s Order of detention of the accused is not mechanical in nature.
Advocate Abhinav Sekhri represented the Appellant/Accused while Senior Advocate/SPP Gautam Narayan represented the Respondent/NIA.
Case Background
An FIR was registered in 2023 under Sections 468, 379, 511, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) Section 3 read with Section 25 and Section 4 read with Section 25 of the Indian Arms Act, 1959, and Section 37(1)(3) and 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 against three individuals namely Yousuf, Yunus, and Shahnawaz. Two of them were arrested and third one fled and could not be arrested. The FIR was transferred to ATS Mumbai, which re-registered the case as FIR under the same Sections and Sections 13,15,16(1)b, 18 and 20 of the UAPA were added to the case after investigation revealed that the accused persons had experimented with explosives in Pune, Kolhapur, and Satara districts in Maharashtra and were associated with ISIS. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the NIA.
Thereafter, another FIR was registered based on the information that one Shahnawaz Alam was moving with one Rizwan and they were conspiring to commit terrorist acts in Delhi and adjoining areas. Resultantly, raids were conducted at various places in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, which culminated in the arrest of Shahnawaz, Arshad, and Rizwan (Appellant). The main allegations against the Appellant and his co-accused were that they were propagating the ideology of ISIS and radicalising impressionable youth. They were further accused of procuring arms, ammunitions, and explosives for ISIS and using social media platforms to promote ISIS and set up bases in Delhi. The custody of the accused was extended periodically. The Appellant had filed a default Bail Application, which was dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, he challenged this before the High Court, seeking bail.
Reasoning
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “… the material on record also indicates that apart from India, conspiracy was also being hatched in other countries. A money trail from Maldives was also being investigated. Material on record indicates that investigation was also underway to find out about other associates of the accused. Substantial cash and arms have been seized from A3 and explosive material has been seized from the Appellant herein and a report from the FSL was being obtained. Certain incriminating videos, communications and chats have been recovered from certain persons showing the complicity of the accused for furtherance of the activities of the ISIS.”
The Court added that certain magazines of ISIS organisation have also been found which were being translated on the instructions of the handlers which have been shared with the Appellant herein on Telegram App through encrypted mode and the details of which were to be investigated.
“This Court is satisfied that the Ld. Trial Court has applied its mind to the grounds which have been set forth. The Ld. Trial Court has categorically observed that the investigation progressed substantially during the extensions that had been granted by it and the investigation had not been stagnant. The order of the Ld. Trial Court extended custody not as a matter of routine but based on credible material outlining the investigative steps requiring completion. The guidelines laid down in Zeeshan Qamar (supra) have been addressed and duly complied with in the impugned order”, it further said.
The Court remarked that at the time when extension of custody was sought, a large amount of cash was recovered and a trail of funds which needed to be investigated.
“The Report has also suggested that there was apprehension that if the custody of the Appellant and his co accused is denied then there is a high likelihood that the Appellant and his accomplices would escape from the clutches of law and destroy material evidence, threaten witnesses and damage the case of the prosecution”, it also noted.
Moreover, the Court observed that the Public Prosecutor’s Report suggests that the Appellant and his co-accused are allegedly active members of the banned terrorist organization ISIS, with a purported nexus to its unlawful activities.
“It has also been asserted that the Appellant and the co-accused convened meetings and actively supported the organization in furtherance of unlawful activities. On this basis, the report urges that continued detention of the accused persons is essential to national security”, it added.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the Appellant could not have been released on account of ongoing investigation as releasing at a crucial stage would have impeded the investigation.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and denied bail to the accused.
Cause Title- Mohd. Rizwan Ashraf v. National Investigation Agency (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:6022-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Abhinav Sekhri and Deeksha Dwivedi.
Respondent: Sr. Adv./SSP Gautam Narayan, PP Zeenat Malick, Advocates Asmita Singh, Tushar Nair, Anirudh Anand, Punishk Handa, Abheet Mangleek, Disha Joshi, and Gunita Dandon.