DATE: 18/02/2025
BENCH: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma
FACTS:
The case pertained to a conspiracy orchestrated by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), a banned terrorist organization based in Pakistan, to carry out terror attacks within Indian territory. As part of this nefarious plan, the co-accused, along with two other associates, unlawfully infiltrated into the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir by crossing the Line of Control (LoC) in 2016. Acting on credible intelligence, the Jammu & Kashmir Police, in coordination with the Indian Army, launched a joint search operation in a village, resulting in the apprehension of the co-accused. Following his arrest, an FIR was registered under Section 14 of the Foreigners Act and Section 32 of the Wireless Act. Subsequently, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) took over the probe, given the gravity of the matter and its implications on national security.
During the course of the investigation, it was revealed that a grid reference noted in the co-accused’s personal diary was in close proximity to the residence of the Appellant-accused in Yahama, Jammu and Kashmir, raising suspicion about his involvement. Based on the evidence gathered, the NIA filed a supplementary charge sheet before the Trial Court against the Appellant and other co-accused individuals, implicating them in the broader conspiracy.
The trial proceedings led to the conviction of the co-accused, who pleaded guilty to several offences, including criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), in conjunction with multiple provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), such as Sections 17, 18, 20, and 38. Additionally, he was found guilty under Sections 121-A and 489(C) of the IPC, Section 9B of the Explosives Act, 1884, Section 4 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections 7 and 10 read with Section 25 of the Arms Act, Section 14 of the Foreigners Act, and Section 6(1A) of the Wireless Act.
Challenging the charges framed against him and the proceedings initiated in the Trial Court, the Appellant-accused filed an appeal under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008, before the jurisdictional High Court, seeking relief from the allegations leveled against him.
ISSUES:
The main is in the present case is whether the appellant is entitled to bail in the present and also whether the delay in procedure by the state is a indicator of the lack of any solid evidence against the appellant.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
Based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, call detail records, and the appellant’s association with a known terrorist, the court finds the appellant guilty under Sections 18, 19, and 39 of the UAPA. The appellant knowingly harbored and assisted a terrorist, facilitating his concealment and sustenance, thereby contributing to unlawful activities. Given the severity of the charges and the impact of such offenses on national security, the court sentences the appellant to imprisonment as prescribed under the relevant sections of the UAPA.
The prosecution has presented substantial evidence establishing the appellant's active role in aiding Bahadur Ali, a convicted Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist. Protected witness PW-Y confirmed that the appellant knowingly provided shelter and justified his actions as part of a broader militant struggle. The call detail records establish his contact with Pakistani numbers linked to terrorist operations, and the identification of his number as "Zahur Ah (Dr)" further corroborates his association. Additionally, the appellant's number, registered in his brother’s name, was traced to a location near his residence, strengthening the inference of his involvement.
Harbouring terrorists poses a significant threat to national security by enabling their operations and evasion of law enforcement. Section 19 of the UAPA, read with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Kalpnath Rai, establishes that such an act requires knowledge of the individual being a terrorist, which the evidence overwhelmingly proves in this case. The court also considers the appellant’s initial guilty plea, later retracted on claims of coercion, which was deemed unconvincing. Given the gravity of the offense and its implications for national security, the court holds that the appellant’s continued detention is justified, and a stringent sentence is warranted under the provisions of the UAPA.
ANALYSIS:
The court’s decision underscores the principle that harboring a terrorist is a grave offense under the UAPA, requiring clear knowledge and intent. The prosecution effectively established that the appellant knowingly provided shelter and assistance to a convicted Lashkar-e-Taiba terrorist, thereby contributing to unlawful activities. The call detail records, protected witness testimony, and location data collectively demonstrated his active involvement. The court also noted that the appellant’s phone, registered in his brother’s name, was linked to communications with Pakistani operatives, further strengthening the case against him. Given the severity of the charges and their implications for national security, the court found no grounds to grant bail or dismiss the charges.
Furthermore, the ruling reaffirms that procedural delays do not necessarily indicate a lack of evidence, especially in complex terrorism-related cases requiring extensive investigation. The court dismissed the appellant’s claim of coercion in his initial guilty plea, emphasizing that his retraction lacked credibility. The application of Kalpnath Rai established that harboring a terrorist necessitates mens rea (knowledge), which was sufficiently proven in this case. The judgment reflects the judiciary’s commitment to national security and deterrence against those who assist terrorist networks, reinforcing the stringent provisions of the UAPA.
info@adhwaitha.com
