The Karnataka High Court has observed that it is the duty of the Constitutional Courts to protect the nation from people who indulge in anti-national and anti-societal activities.

In that context, the Bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil observed that, "Article 21 cannot be stretched too long to afford protection to persons who have least concern for the rule of law and pose threat to sovereignty and integrity of the nation... Constitutional powers cannot be exercised when materials produced before the court prima facie show or indicate threat to unity, integrity and sovereignty of our country, instead it is the duty of the Constitutional Courts to protect the nation and its society from such people who indulge in anti national and anti societal activities. Without the nation there is no Constitution."

Counsel S Balakrishnan appeared for the appellant, while Special PP P Prasannakumar appeared for the respondent.

The background of the case involves the registration of an FIR regarding a stabbing incident. The investigation revealed terrorist activities by a banned organization, leading to the NIA taking over the case. The appellant, accused No. 6, was mentioned in the supplementary charge sheet.

During the appeal, the appellant's counsel argued that the allegations against the appellant were not indicative of his involvement in anti-national activities. The charge sheet suggested that he conducted reconnaissance under the influence of accused No. 2, but the evidence was weak. The appellant's alleged radicalization was based on social media and lacked concrete details of his involvement in anti-social activities. The defense contended that Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act was not applicable, as there were insufficient materials to establish the appellant's activities as terrorist acts.

The defense also questioned the connection between the appellant and accused No. 2, emphasizing that the appellant's phone was registered under his mother's name, and there was no evidence of his use of the phone. The defense argued that the appellant's role was exaggerated, relying on his status as a college student and the lack of evidence supporting his direct involvement in any criminal activity.

The Special Public Prosecutor asserted that the final report exposed the criminal activities of the appellant, including reconnaissance for arson attacks and close collaboration with other accused individuals. The prosecution argued that the appellant's possession of radicalizing materials and support for the ideology of a banned terrorist organization justified his detention.

The prosecutor emphasized the forensic examination of digital devices, suggesting the appellant's conscious possession of materials supporting terrorist ideologies. The prosecutor cited the application of Section 43D(5) of the UAP Act, stating that if the accusations appeared prima facie true, other factors for granting bail were irrelevant. The prosecution contended that the Trial Court correctly evaluated the materials to determine the prima facie truth of the accusations.

The High Court observed that, "The above chats and many such not extracted here are clearly indicative of unlawful activities undertaken by an organization of which the appellant is affiliated to... Appellant was an engineering college mate of accused no .2 at Mangaluru. Appellant was radicalized by accused no.2 for the cause of organization (IS) and is a member of proscribed terrorist organization. As a part of larger conspiracy appellant participated in recce activities at Mangaluru along with accused no.2 for conducting arson with an intention to wage war against India. He also used encrypted communication platforms on the instructions of accused no.2 for receiving the radicalized contents. Digital devices were seized from him and all those things reveal a lot of incriminating materials relating to Islamic State. The accusations thus found in the charge sheet do not appear to be imaginary, rather they are the result of analysis of the data found in the devices recovered from the possession of the appellant. The statements of the witnesses especially of LW193 and LW195 indicate that the appellant had downloaded some videos from the dark web and he was watching them regularly. The statements of the protected witnesses show that the appellant was fully radicalized and had formed an opinion that Indian Government was against the Muslims and that the Indian Army was harassing the Kashmirians to which Jihad was the only answer. He was found to be in conscious possession of materials challenging the sovereignty of India."

In light of the same, the appeal was dismissed.

Appearances:

Appellant: Counsel S Balakrishnan

Respondent: Special PP P Prasannakumar

Cause Title: Mazin Abdul Rahman vs National Investigation Agency Bengaluru

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Karnataka High CourtJustice Sreenivas Harish KumarJustice Vijaykumar A PatilUAPA

Verdictum News Desk