Don't Want Sympathisers Of ISIS Ideology To Be Let Free Easily: NIA Tells Supreme Court While Seeking Cancellation Of Bail

The Supreme Court today refused to cancel the bail granted by the Delhi High Court to a person accused of being an ISIS sympathiser and attempting to travel abroad (“Hijrah”) to join the ISIS.

However, the Court ordered that the accused should not be permitted to travel abroad without the High Court's permission and clarified that the observations of the High Court in the order granting bail are only for the purpose of granting bail and will not apply to the trial.

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh was hearing an SLP filed by the NIA.

During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, who appeared for the NIA and only sought modification of a condition imposed by the High Court, told the Apex Court that people who are influenced and sympathisers to the ISIS ideology should not be let free easily.

At the outset, Senior Advocate Nitya Ramakrishnan, appearing for the accused, informed the Court that the accused is out on bail since a year without any problems and that he is gainfully employed.

ASG Bhati told the Court that the case against the accused is of being an ISIS sympathiser and that his "involvement is not of that serious nature". She informed the Court that the trial is proceeding, and he is participating in the trial, and 44 witnesses have been examined so far.

"Two requests I have, my lords. Lordships may consider passing an additional condition that he will not go out of the country during the process of the trial. He has apparently applied for passport. Second request is, there are several observations in the impugned order, which are sort of making the offence seem very diluted. After all, it is ISIS ideology and we don't want people who are influenced and sympathisers to that ideology to be let free easily. Lordship may consider expunging those observations", the ASG submitted.

Justice Surya Kant said, "Those (observations of High Court) are only for bail purposes".

The Court then proceeded to pass the order. The Court noted in the order that the prosecution proposes to examine more than 160 witnesses, out of which only 44 have been examined.

The Court noted in its order, "The conclusion of the trial will take some reasonable time. The Respondent was released on bail after he had spent almost three years in judicial custody as an undertrial. There is no instance of misuse of consessional bail by the Respondent so far as he is regularly appearing before the Trial Court, and there is no attempt to obstruct the ongoing trial. That being so, we see no reason to cancel the bail granted to the Respondent".

The Court further ordered, "However, the learned ASG appears to be justified in urging that the Respondent should not be allowed to go abroad during the pendency of the Trial. In this regard, it is directed that the Respondent shall not travel abroad unless express prior permission is granted by the High Court. Similarly, it is clarified that the observations made by the High Court touching the merits of the allegations attributed to the Respondent in the FIR or the Chargesheet are limited only for the purpose of granting bail and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial."

The Apex Court also refused to accept the contention on behalf of the accused/Respondent that the High Court had already enabled the Trial Court to grant permission to travel abroad. The Court reiterated that such permission will have to be sought and obtained from the High Court itself.

Background

The NIA had approached the Supreme Court challenging an order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court granting bail to the accused.

The Accused, Ammar Abdul Rahiman, aged around 31 years, was arrested in the year 2021 and charged under Sections 120B of IPC read with Sections 2(o), 13 and Sections 38 and 39 of the UAPA.

He was accused of watching lectures of hard-line Muslim preacher Zakir Naik. Another accused, A-4, used to share relevant developments with him to radicalize and motivate him. He downloaded Telegram application on his iPhone, and A-4 assisted him in creating his Telegram ID and continued radicalizing him for taking “Hijrah” with her and her associates to Khorasan for joining ISIS. The NIA alleged that in March 2018, he visited Dubai with his family and stayed in the rented accommodation of A-4 for 4/5 days, where he met A-6 and by March 2019, he was radicalized and wanted to go to Khorasan via Tehran, but could not do so as his passport was not renewed. It was also alleged that his mobile contained various incriminating material.

A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court reversed the order of the Trial Court and released the accused on bail. In its Order, the High Court had held, "Merely because he was following some news items related to Middle-East and Israel Palestine conflict or had been accessing hate CRL.A. 79/2024 Page 44 of 46 speeches of hard-line Muslim preachers, would not be enough to hold that he was acting in furtherance of a banned terrorist organisation. Therefore, invocation of Section 38 and 39 of UAPA seems erroneous and misplaced".

The High Court, while coming to the conclusion that the accused, at best, can be said to be a highly radicalised person who believed in the ideology of ISIS, a banned terrorist organisation. "However, his such fascination with ISIS cannot be dubbed as if he was associated with ISIS and was furthering its cause", the Court had held.

Cause Title: National Investigation Agency vs. Ammar Abdul Rahiman (Diary No. - 36775/2024)