Religious Terrorism Distorts True Teachings Of Faith; No Religion Supports Violence: Madhya Pradesh HC While Denying Bail To Alleged ISIS Follower

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed the bail plea of an individual accused of being a follower of the banned terrorist organization ISIS, stressing the severe implications of religious terrorism and the need for a firm judicial approach in cases involving serious allegations of terrorism and unlawful activities.
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed that religious terrorism distorts faith's true teachings, causing immense harm to individuals and societies.
The Court stated, “Religious terrorism is a tragic and dangerous phenomenon that distorts the true teachings of faith and causes immense harm to individuals and societies. While the roots of religious terrorism are deep and complex, it is crucial to understand that no religion inherently supports violence or terror. This Court cannot express undue leniency to a person who is facing a serious charge of terrorism and unlawful activities. The trial is also set at full motion, and there is every possibility of trial being completed in its due course. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.”
The Appellant sought bail under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, challenging a trial court order denying bail. The charges against him included offenses under Sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 153-A (promoting enmity), 153-B (assertions prejudicial to national integration), and 295A (outraging religious feelings) of the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, he faced charges under Sections 13, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39, and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which deal with unlawful activities, terrorist funding, conspiracy, membership in terrorist organizations, and support for such organizations.
The NIA’s investigation revealed that the Appellant and co-accused persons followed extremist propaganda, including videos by Islamic preacher Zakir Naik, and had expressed interest in jihad. Allegedly, the appellant created and distributed pamphlets resembling ISIS and Al-Qaeda flags and affixed one to a local mosque wall to attract like-minded individuals.
Investigators further discovered a conspiracy to attack the Ordnance Factory in Jabalpur to obtain weapons and ammunition. Incriminating evidence, such as digital devices, handwritten diaries, and ISIS publications, was seized from the appellant and other accused individuals.
The Appellant's counsel contended that he was falsely implicated and had no prior criminal record. They argued that the evidence collected by the NIA did not establish a prima facie case against him. The defense further claimed that:
1. Mere association with a terrorist organization does not constitute an offense under Sections 38 and 39 of UAPA.
2. The alleged support for ISIS must demonstrate intent to further the organization’s activities.
3. No weapons or direct evidence of the appellant’s involvement in terrorist acts were recovered.
The defense also emphasized the court’s duty to assess the evidence under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA to determine whether a prima facie case existed before rejecting bail.
The NIA argued that the charges against the appellant were grave, posing a direct threat to national security and societal harmony. They presented evidence, including seized materials such as ISIS propaganda videos, objectionable literature, and witness statements, linking the appellant to the alleged offenses.
The agency emphasized that Section 43D(5) of UAPA imposes stringent restrictions on granting bail to those accused of terrorism-related offenses. The prosecution also highlighted that the appellant and his associates conspired to attack a critical defense installation with plans to either seize or destroy the Ordnance Factory in Jabalpur.
The Division Bench referred to Supreme Court judgments in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) and K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India (2021) to interpret Section 43D(5) of UAPA, underscoring the limited scope for granting bail in such cases.
After examining the charge sheet, the Bench concluded that sufficient evidence existed to establish the appellant’s involvement in the alleged unlawful activities. The Court observed, “There is specific material to show that the appellant advocated, abetted, or incited the commission of many unlawful activities.”
The Court also noted that the conspiracy to attack the Ordnance Factory was a direct threat to national security, stating, “The material collected by the NIA shows that the appellant was part of a conspiracy to commit a terrorist act, targeting a critical defense entity. The accused intended to establish their own organization to undermine the Constitution of India.”
Dismissing the appeal, the Court held that the charges against the appellant were grave, with sufficient evidence of his active participation in terrorist activities. It also noted that the trial was progressing swiftly, leaving no reason to grant bail at this stage. "Accordingly, the instant Criminal Appeal is hereby dismissed. The order passed by the learned trial judge, dated 12/04/2024 in SC NIA No. 02 of 2023, is hereby affirmed. However, we make it clear that the findings recorded in this judgment are only for considering the prayer for bail, and the learned trial Court may proceed in the case without being prejudiced from any finding given by this Court," the Bench ordered.
Cause Title: Mohd. Shahid Khan v. Union of India [Neutral Citation No. 2025:MPHC-JBP:257]
Appearance:-
Appellant: Senior Advocate Manish Datt, Advocate Shri Satyam Rai
Respondent: Advocates Deepesh Joshi, Qasim Ali
Click here to read/download the Judgment