The NIA has also made allegations of terror funding in this case over a transaction of Rs 60,000 between the accused. (File)A Delhi court, while dealing with an Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) case, has said it was unfathomable that “mere possession of Jihadi literature” or philosophy “would amount to an offence” if the material is not banned and if it is not about the execution of such philosophy for terrorist acts.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has in the case accused 11 people of aligning themselves with the banned terrorist organisation Islamic State of Iraq and Syria and “being part of various ISIS propaganda channels on different secured as well as unsecured social media applications” and “propagating the violent Jihadi ideology of the ISIS.” The NIA has also made allegations of terror funding in this case over a transaction of Rs 60,000 between the accused.
Principal District and Sessions Judge Dharmesh Sharma, in his order passed on October 31, said, “To hold that mere possession of Jihadi literature having a particular religious philosophy would amount to an offence, though such literature is not expressly or specifically banned under any provision of law, is not fathomable in law unless and until there is material about the execution of such philosophy so as to do terrorist acts.”
“Such a proposition runs counter to the freedoms and rights guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. Even if they were impressed by the said philosophy and ideology, still they cannot be said to be members much less such members as would attract the penal liability of the said organisation,” added Judge Dharmesh Sharma.
The court framed charges against Mushab Anwar, Rhees Rasheed, Mundadiguttu Sadanananda, Marla Deepthi, Mohd Waqar Lone, Mizha Siddeeque, Shifa Haris, Obaid Hamid Matta, and Ammar Abdul Rahiman under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)s read with Sections 2 (o), 13, 38 and 39 of the UAPA. The court discharged one accused, Muzamil Hassan Bhat, of all charges.
While framing charges against the accused the court reasoned that they had not only been sympathisers of the ISIS ideology but also professed themselves to be lone wolves intending to bring Caliphate rule to Jammu and Kashmir. The court did not agree with the arguments put forth by defence counsels that the accused were “not disseminating the provocative messages.”
The judge said there is “no iota of material collected that any of the accused procured arms or ammunition or explosive substances or attempted to acquire the same, or for that planned to commit any terrorist act so as to cause large scale disturbances or fear in the mind of the general public.” “There is no material that any of the accused individually or for that matter with in association with one or the other planned to carry out any terrorist act or act preparatory to any terrorist act,” it said.
“The material gathered by the investigation agency at the best demonstrates that almost all the accused, except one, were ISIS sympathisers and accessing highly radicalised Jihadi material from the web world but there is no iota of material to suggest any of the accused individually or in association with one or the other committed or planning any terrorist act,” the court added.
On allegations that the accused conducted recruitment drives, the court said, “There is nothing in the messages that would demonstrate that any such kind of recruitment process was ever conducted by any of the accused persons.”
“To sum up, the accused persons before this Court are more or less young persons and their religious & ideological bent of mind is certainly disdainful, despicable and contrary to the ideals of the Constitution of India. However, since none of the accused is said to have indulged in any acts of violence or of being a party to any conspiracy for committing any particular terrorist act, they cannot be held prima facie to have committed the offences in question.”