Absence of Active Participation in Terrorist Acts and Mere Possession of Radical Content Does Not Suffice for UAPA Charges: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in ISIS Allegation Case
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court granted bail to Ammar Abdul Rahiman, overturning the trial court’s decision which had denied bail under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The High Court’s decision, delivered by Justices Manoj Jain and Suresh Kumar Kait on May 6, 2024, hinges on the lack of sufficient evidence suggesting Rahiman’s intent to further terrorist activities, despite his alleged radical inclinations and possession of content related to ISIS.
Legal Context and Charges
Rahiman faced charges under various sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), primarily focused on his supposed involvement with ISIS, a designated terrorist organization. The trial court had earlier concluded that Rahiman was actively associated with ISIS and engaged in activities supporting its terrorist ideology. However, the High Court found the evidence insufficient to establish his active participation or preparation for terrorist acts.
High Court’s Analysis and Observations
The High Court detailed its assessment of the allegations and evidence against Rahiman. The judges noted that mere possession of radical content and discussions around potentially migrating to ISIS-controlled territories did not meet the threshold of active participation or support under UAPA Sections 38 and 39. The court underscored that:
Rahiman’s digital evidence indicated radical views but no substantive evidence of active participation or preparation for terrorism.
Mere possession and discussions, without evidence of dissemination or direct involvement in terrorist activities, are not sufficient to establish active membership or support under the UAPA.
Decision and Rationale for Bail Grant
The High Court concluded that the stringent conditions of UAPA for denying bail were not met, as the accusations lacked substantial evidence of Rahiman’s active involvement or intent to further terrorist activities. The appellant was granted bail on strict terms set by the trial court, with the caution that any breach of conditions could lead to revocation of bail.
Implications of the Judgment This judgment emphasizes the necessity of concrete evidence to establish the intent and active participation in terrorist activities under the UAPA, setting a significant precedent for bail considerations in cases involving mere possession of incriminating material without direct involvement in terrorist acts.
Date of Decision: 6th May 2024
Ammar Abdul Rahiman vs National Investigation Agency’
