Whether Killing of Hindu Religious Leaders Qualifies as Terrorist Act Is Debatable: Madras HC Grants Bail to UAPA Accused

While granting bail to a person booked beneath the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, the Madras High Court lately noticed that whether or not the killing of Hindu non secular leaders by itself can represent a terrorist act is debatable. The man, specifically Asif Musthaheen, was accused of intending to trigger harm to leaders of Hindu organisations in and across the space the place he was residing. Allegedly, he was a staunch supporter of Islamic rule in India and Osama bin Laden and had been following the ideology of the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda.

Musthaheen had been denied bail by the Sessions Judge of Erode district in April this 12 months. He was arrested on July 26, 2022, for the offences beneath sections 121, 122, and 125 of the IPC r/w 18, 18A, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA.

The case of the prosecution was that Musthaheen started amassing data by way of social media concerning the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and acquired in contact with an ISIS member by way of an app referred to as Nekogram. He chatted on the app with the ISIS member utilizing the nickname ‘Abu Talha’. The message between the 2 which have been initially in Arabic, confirmed that he supposed to trigger menace to the unity and integrity of India and had deliberate to kill the chief of Hindu organisation for that.

Seeking aid earlier than the excessive court docket, the counsel for Musthaheen submitted earlier than the excessive court docket that he had been in custody since July 2022 and that the character of the allegations was such that it didn’t warrant a chronic indefinite pre-trial detention.

He harassed that the authorities had not recovered any incriminating supplies from Musthaheen apart from a cell phone which he had allegedly used to talk with the ISIS member.

The counsel additional argued that even when it was assumed that Musthaheen had certainly communicated with the ISIS member, it didn’t represent the offences alleged in opposition to him.

On the opposite, the Additional Public Prosecutor mentioned that the highest court docket additionally had noticed {that a} prima facie case was made out in opposition to Musthaheen whereas dismissing the SLP filed by him difficult the order of dismissal of his earlier bail software.

The excessive court docket bench of Justice SS Sundar and Justice Sunder Mohan famous that the textual content messages proven between Musthaheen and the alleged ISIS member didn’t point out wherever that he had joined ISIS. The court docket additionally identified that the prosecution had not produced any proof to present that the opposite individual was an ISIS member.

“Therefore, we are of the prima facie view that the offence under Section 38(2) of the UA (P) Act, has not been made out,” the bench held.

Further, the bench famous that as regards the offence beneath Section 18 of the UAPA, it was the prosecution case that Musthaheen had conspired to commit terrorist acts in India in opposition to Hindu non secular leaders belonging to the BJP and RSS.

“The evidence discloses that the conspiracy was to attack certain religious leaders. The respondent has not spelt out how that would amount to a terrorist act as defined under Section 15 of the UA (P) Act,” the bench underscored.

The court docket harassed that to carry an act beneath Section 15 of the UA (P) Act, the act have to be achieved with an intent to threaten or probably to threaten the unity, integrity, safety, financial safety, or sovereignty of India or with an intent to strike terror or probably to strike terror within the individuals or any part of the individuals in India or any overseas nation.

Therefore, whereas permitting bail to Musthaheen, the bench, nonetheless, added that its observations concerning the prima facie case beneath Sections 18 and 38(2) of the UA (P) Act have been solely made by considering the broad chances of the case and to take into account the bail software.