UAPA| Support To Terrorist Organization Either Monetarily Or In The Form Of Networking, Meetings, Etc. Is Prohibited: Delhi HC
The Court was considering an Appeal against an order of Sessions Court denying bail to the Appellant for the third time in a case registered under name of ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba conspiracy case’.

The Delhi High Court observed that support to a terrorist organization either monetarily or otherwise in the form of networking, meetings, etc. is prohibited under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976
The Court was considering an Appeal against an order of Sessions Court denying bail to the Appellant for the third time in a case registered under name of ‘Lashkar-e-Taiba conspiracy case’.
The division-bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma observed, "Section 38 of UAPA deals with membership of a terrorist organization and Section 39 proscribes support to a terrorist organization. Such support could include monetary support, assistance in arranging meetings, managing meetings to support or furthering the activity of the terrorist organization, receiving money which could be used for terrorism, etc. Broadly, therefore, support to a terrorist organization either monetarily or otherwise in the form of networking, meetings, etc. is clearly prohibited."
The Appellant was represented by Advocate Sanjiv Jha while the Respondent was Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi.
Facts of the Case
The FIR was registered under Sections 120B, 121 & 121A of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38 and 40 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1976. The broad case of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) is that credible information was received by the Central Government that Lashkar-e-Taiba, 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.
All the accused were alleged to be associates and running the network of OGWs 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. It was alleged that the accused received monetary benefits in return for providing such sensitive information
Reasoning By Court
The Court at the outset pointed out that 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.
"For the said purpose, the modus operandi generally adopted by such terrorist organisations includes recruitment of youngsters, funding of terror by opening fraudulent bank accounts, use of digital devices for enabling communication and networking of the terrorist organisation, coordination with handlers located abroad including in countries such as Pakistan, etc. These organisations have caused immense harm, damage and loss to human life, institutions, destruction of property, etc. 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 observed.
The Court noted 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.
"A terrorist act is defined under Section 15 of the statute to include acts that may cause or are likely to cause death or injury to persons, loss, damage or destruction to property, disruption in the country, etc. Under Section 15(2), terrorist act would also include acts which constitutes an offence under the treaties that are notified in the second schedule of the 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," the Court observed.
The Court held that support to a terrorist organisation could be monetary or in the form of arranging meetings, managing meetings to support or furthering the activity of the terrorist organization, receiving money which could be used for terrorism, etc.
"In today’s world of global communication, a meeting need not be merely a physical meeting. It could even be meetings, arrangement or management of meetings through electronic/digital platforms, through electronic communication, etc. 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.
It was of the view 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. It was further of the view that there is sufficient other evidence on record which is contemporaneous in nature and which ties the Appellant to the mobile number that is being operated by the LeT operative Hyder making their connection clear.
The Appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: Zaffar Abbas vs. National Investigation Agency (2025:DHC:72-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant- Advocate Sanjiv Jha, Advocate Vikash K. Singh, Advocate Tusha Chawla, Advocate Sarthak Singh, Advocate Sachin Bhatt
Respondent- Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, Advocate Aniket Kumar, Advocate Amit Rohila
Click here to read/ download Judgement: