Court of Delhi in the NIA case

New Delhi: A Delhi court observed that “simple possession of jihadist Literature to have a particular religious philosophy” would not be constitute an offence, unless there is evidence of the execution of such a philosophy of committing terrorist acts.

“To consider that the mere possession of jihadist literature having a particular religious philosophy would constitute an offence, although such literature is not expressly or specifically prohibited by any provision of law, is not unfathomable in law unless and until ‘there are elements on the execution of such a philosophy to commit terrorist acts,’ senior district and sessions judge Dharmesh Sharma said in a order October 31.

Such a proposal runs counter to the freedoms and rights guaranteed by Article 19 of the Constitution. Even though they were impressed by the said philosophy and ideology, they still cannot be said to be members of the said organization,” the order said.

According Bar and Benchthe court made the comments while bringing charges against 11 people who have been accused by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in August 2021 for allegedly spreading ISIS ideology and recruiting new members.

The defendants were arraigned under Sections 120B (criminal conspiracy) and 121A (making war against the government of India) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 17 (raising funds for a terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy), 18B (recruitment of any person for a terrorist act), 20 (being a member of a terrorist organization), 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

However, the court said possession of jihadist literature would not constitute an offense under Article 20 of the UAPA.

He further stated that no prima facie case had been established to frame charges under Section 121A of the IPC and Sections 18, 18B, 17 and 40 of the UAPA, according to the report.

According to Indian Expressthe judge said there is “no iota of material collected that any of the defendants procured arms or ammunition or explosive substances or attempted to acquire the same, or for that intended to commit a terrorist act in such a way as to cause widespread disturbance or fear”. in the minds of the general public”.

“To sum up, there is no evidence that any of the defendants conspired to wage war against the Indian government. At the cost of repetition, there is no evidence that they collected weapons , weapons or ammunition or explosives or other harmful devices to prepare and/or plan terrorist activities,” the order stated.

However, the judge said there is reason to At first glance back up the prosecution’s story that the defendants “had a common agenda to spread ISIS ideology through covert social media applications” and attempted to gain support from like-minded people same ideas by influencing, inciting and radicalizing vulnerable young Muslims to join the Islamic State “in accordance with a well-planned criminal plot”.

Of the 11 defendants, the court brought charges against nine people: Mushab Anwar, Rhees Rasheed, Mundadiguttu Sadanananda, Marla Deepthi, Mohd Waqar Lone, Mizha Siddeeque, Shifa Haris, Obaid Hamid Matta and Ammar Abdul Rahiman.

The court order stated that one of the defendants, Irshad Thekke Kolet, allegedly on the run to a foreign country.

He also acquitted a defendant, Muzamil Hassan Bhat, of all charges, saying he had never claimed to be a member of ISIS and had done nothing to further the activities of the organization.

Eight of them were framed under section 120B of the IPC ((criminal association) and Items 2 (o) (unlawful activity), 13 (penalty for unlawful activities), 38 (offence relating to membership in a terrorist organization) and 39 (offence relating to support for a terrorist organization) of the UAPA.

The court ruled that Hamid Matta did not claim to be a member of the banned organization, but engaged in other illegal activities. Accordingly, he charged him under Sections 2(o) and 13 of the UAPA.