Read Time: 08 minutes

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to one Saleem Khan, a UAPA accused and an alleged member of the Al-Hind group.

The bench of Justice B. Veerappa and Justice S. Rachaiah said, "Mere attending meetings and becoming Member of Al-Hind Group, which is not a banned organization... and attending jihadi meetings, purchasing training materials and organizing shelters for co-members is not an offence as contemplated under the provisions of section 2(k) or section 2(m) of UA(P) Act."

Court, however, denied bail to co-accused Mohammed Zaid, against whom Court found that he was associated with another co-accused for contacting an unknown ISIS (a banned organization) handler through Dark Web.

Khan and Zaid moved the high court after rejection of their bail pleas by the NIA Special Court in December 2020. Opposing the criminal appeal, the State Counsel averred that there are serious allegations of criminal conspiracy, waging war against the nation and being members of terrorist organization against Khan and Zaid. 

He submitted that there are sufficient prima facie materials available indicating that Khan and Zaid along with co-accused had indulged in commission of the offences, to pose a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of the nation and also its security. 

Further contending that during the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer had collected prima facie materials from Khan and Zaid containing incriminating information, the State Counsel argued, "Thus, sufficient materials are secured by the Investigating Officer which prima facie indicate involvement of the accused persons in the alleged crime. Therefore, the accused are not entitled for bail in view of section 43-D of the UA(P) Act and the accused have not made out any extraordinary ground to grant bail and sought to reject the application."

However, the counsel appearing for Khan and Zaid argued that they are totally innocent and both have got valid and tenable defence to make at the trial.

Granting relief to Khan, Court reasoned, "On careful examination of the material forming part of the chargesheet, there are no reasonable grounds for believing the accusation against the accused No.11 prima facie true. In the absence of any prima facie case, restrictions imposed by sub-section (5) of section 43-D per se do not prevent a Constitutional Court from granting bail on the grounds of violation of part III of the Constitution."

However, regarding Ziad, Court noted that material forming part of the chargesheet clearly indicated that Zaid taught Dark Web operations to other co-accused in the case and prepared fake Aadhar Card for Al-Hind group members.

Therefore, Court held, "(Zaid) was part of the terror group and was involved in furthering the activities of ISIS in India and assisted Mehboob Pasha accused No.1 in communicating with the ISIS handler through dark web and thus, committed offences punishable under section 120B of IPC and sections 18, 20 and 39 of the UA(P) Act."

Accordingly, allowing the criminal appeal moved by Khan and Zaid 'in part', Court granted bail to Khan and rejected the bail plea of Zaid. 

On January 10, 2020 a First Information Report was registered against 17 accused persons by the Central Crime Branch of the Bengaluru police, including Khan and Zaid. On January 23, 2020, the National Investigation Agency re-registered the FIR. Khan was arrested on January 20 and Zaid was arrested on March 9.

After investigation, Investigation Officer filed chargesheet in July, 2020 under the provisions of section 120B of IPC, sections 25(1B) (a) of Arms Act and sections 18, 18A, 18B, 19, 20, 38 and 39 of the UA(P) Act against Khan and under the provisions of section 120B 16 of IPC, sections 18, 20 and 39 of the UA(P) Act against Zaid.

Allegedly, Khan being a member of the Al-Hind Group attended several criminal conspiracy meetings as well as jihadi meetings and underwent pistol and bow and arrows training classes, purchased training materials such as tents, sleeping bag, knives and organized shelters for Al-Hind Group members at Gujarat.

Case Title: Saleem Khan and another v. State of Karnataka