Supreme Court Expresses Concern Over Delay In Trial Of UAPA Case Over Alleged ISIS Links

While hearing the bail plea of a 25-year-old Kashmiri man booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged ISIS links, the Supreme Court on Tuesday (September 17) observed that steps must be taken to ensure that the trial is completed expeditiously.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing petitioner/accused-Jamshed Zahoor Paul's challenge to a Delhi High Court judgment of April 24, 2024, whereby he was denied regular bail. Paul was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell in 2018.

Last week, the Court had issued notice to the state essentially for the purpose of expediting the trial. Yesterday, it asked Advocate Zoheb Hossain (for prosecution) to file an affidavit detailing how many witnesses were sought to be examined, the pendency of trials before the Presiding Officer, etc.

When Advocate Nizam Pasha (for the petitioner) urged that the trial is going to take time and the petitioner has already spent 6 years in custody, Justice Kant clarified, "we will have to do something. It can be 6 months or 1 year. Ideally, this trial should be over in 1 year". In response, Hossain stated on instructions that the trial is expected to be completed in a year.

Justice Kant further conveyed that the court would abstain from monitoring trial, as it can have adverse impact, but it won't shut its eyes and see if the trial can be expedited. Three weeks' time was given to the prosecution to file an affidavit as to:

- How many witnesses does the prosecution propose to examine,

- How many of those witnesses are public servants,

- How many witnesses are domain experts,

- Total pendency of trials before the Presiding Officer of the Court (Patiala House), etc.

Before parting, the Court also asked Hossain to come with instructions on proportionate distribution of trials across Delhi. The judge said, "In Delhi, in some courts, there are 20 trials...in other courts, there are 2 trials. Here we have a specific offence. [There should be] proportionate distribution so that all trials can be expedited. That also you find out".

Paul was nabbed in the national capital after he was found moving towards Lal Qila. One pistol containing five live cartridges in its magazine was recovered from him. As per the prosecution case, Paul and another man arrested with him disclosed that they had procured the recovered weapons in lieu of money from four persons from Uttar Pradesh.

The NIA alleged that Paul had allegiance to ISIS and was involved in procuring arms and ammunition for their cadres for executing some terrorist act in Jammu & Kashmir. It was further claimed that during investigation, both accused divulged that they were propagating ideology of terrorist ISIS in India and were in touch with another ISIS militant, Abdullah Basith.

Dismissing Paul's bail plea, the High Court observed that he, being a supporter of banned terrorist organization ISIS' ideology, arranged illegal weapons and was involved in providing other logistic support to its cadres.

It was further of the opinion that the procurement of sophisticated weapons could not be brushed aside casually. Paul's disclosure had actually led to recovery of some vital facts and, therefore, such part could not be labelled as inadmissible, the High Court observed.

Observing that Paul and the other accused procured weapons from UP, came to Delhi together and were planning to go to Kashmir together, the High Court added: “At this stage, appellant does not seem to be in any position to wriggle out of the statutory bar contained in proviso of Section 43D (5) of UAPA as there are clear-cut allegations which go on to indicate that accusation against him is prima facie true. This observation is based on broad probabilities and surface analysis of material collected by respondent.”

Case Title: Jamshed Zahoor Paul v. State of NCT of Delhi, SLP(Crl) No.12644/2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order