Rajasthan High Court Refuses Bail To Accused In Jail Since 9 Yrs Over Alleged Links With Indian Mujahideen, Says No Unnecessary Delay In Trial

Rejecting the bail applications filed by two accused incarcerated for over 9 years for their alleged participation in terrorist activities by being associated with Indian Mujahideen, Rajasthan High Court has observed that the evidence available with the prosecution prima facie indicates their role in the commission of alleged offences.

The single-judge bench of Justice Kuldeep Mathur noted that it was difficult to make a prima facie opinion under Section 43(D) (5) of UAPA Act that the averments against the petitioners/accuses were untrue. The court explained that the material available on record like the ‘oral, documentary and electronic evidence in the form of mobile phones, chats, videos etc.’ prima facie connects the petitioner with offences alleged under UAPA.

About the progress of the trial ongoing on a day-to-day basis in the competent criminal court, the bench sitting at Jodhpur noted as below:

“…..more than half of the prosecution witnesses have been examined coupled with the fact that the trial court is conducting trial on day-to-day basis and making all endeavors to conclude the trial at the earliest, this Court is of the opinion that the trial of the case is likely to be concluded shortly…the argument that the petitioners have suffered incarceration for a period of more than 9 years does not appeal to this Court especially when nothing has come on record to show that the prosecution is unnecessarily delaying the trial against the petitioners”.

One of the accused, Mohammad Maroof, is also speculated to have maintained communication with the heads of Indian Mujahideen currently based in Pakistan, namely Iqbal Bhatkal and Riyaz Bhatkal.

The state had submitted that the examination of 68 witnesses out of 110 prosecution witnesses had been completed according to an order of the co-ordinate bench of the High Court to expedite the trial on 19.07.2022. While rejecting the bail pleas filed by Mohammad Yasir and Mohammed Maroof under Section 439 CrPC, the court also remarked that the observations made in the order are for the limited purpose of granting/not granting bail and shouldn’t affect the findings about to be made by the trial court.

Background

The accused were arrested in connection with an FIR filed in Pratapnagar Police Station for offences that come under Explosive Substances Act, Sections 16, 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 23, 38 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Sections 120-B, 121, 121A,122, 465, 468, 471 IPC. According to the police, both of them attended meetings of Indian Mujahideen in 2013 and hatched a conspiracy to carry out terrorist operations in Rajasthan. Both petitioners have also been accused of recruiting others to the banned organisation and making them participate in anti-national activities organised by the terror outfit.

One of the accused, Mohammad Maroof, contended that he couldn’t be connected to any of the offences he has been charged with solely based on the chat messages made by him and co-accused persons. The accused also tried to impress upon the court that the co-accused persons against whom similar allegations are raised have already been granted bail by the High Court and the Supreme Court in several instances.

The prosecution dwelled on the argument that apart from the above acts, the accused have also provided the terrorist organisation with logistic and financial support. Further investigation and the evidence that may unfold during the trial might give a clear picture as to the real extent of the role played by both accused, the prosecution further submitted. The prosecution also vehemently opposed the bail pleas on the ground that the trial can be concluded at the earliest considering the current pace of examination of witnesses.

Case Title: Mohammad Ammar Yasir v. State of Rajasthan & Mohammad Maroof v. State of Rajasthan

Case No: S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11044/2023 & S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 10286/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order