POCSO Presumption Is Not a Dead Letter, But ‘Sterling Witness’ Test Still Governs Conviction: Bombay High Court High Courts Cannot Routinely Entertain Contempt Petitions Beyond One Year: Madras High Court Declines Contempt Plea Filed After Four Years Courts Cannot Reject Suit by Weighing Evidence at Threshold: Delhi High Court Restores Discrimination Suit by Indian Staff Against Italian Embassy Improvised Testimonies and Dubious Recovery Cannot Sustain Murder Conviction: Allahabad High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Sale with Repurchase Condition is Not a Mortgage: Bombay High Court Reverses Redemption Decree After 27-Year Delay Second Transfer Application on Same Grounds is Not Maintainable: Punjab & Haryana High Court Clarifies Legal Position under Section 24 CPC Custodial Interrogation Is Not Punitive — Arrest Cannot Be Used as a Tool to Humiliate in Corporate Offence Allegations: Delhi High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail Partnership Act | Eviction Suit by Unregistered Firm Maintainable if Based on Statutory Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Reasonable Grounds Under Section 37 of NDPS Act Cannot Be Equated with Proof; They Must Reflect More Than Suspicion, But Less Than Conviction: J&K HC Apprehension to Life Is a Just Ground for Transfer When Roots Lie in History of Ideological Violence: Bombay High Court Transfers Defamation Suits Against Hamid Dabholkar, Nikhil Wagle From Goa to Maharashtra Violation of Income Tax Law Doesn’t Void Cheque Bounce Offence: Supreme Court Overrules Kerala HC, Says Section 138 NI Act Stands Independent Overstaying Licensee Cannot Evade Double Damages by Legal Technicalities: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Is Not a Stamp of Truth: Punjab & Haryana High Court Trademark Law Must Protect Reputation, Not Reward Delay Tactics: Bombay High Court Grants Injunction to FedEx Against Dishonest Use of Its Well-Known Mark Commercial Dispute Need Not Wait for a Written Contract: Delhi High Court Upholds Rs.6 Lakh Decree in Rent Recovery Suit Against Storage Defaulter Limitation Begins From Refusal, Not Date of Agreement—Especially When Title Was Under Litigation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sale by Karta of Ancestral Property Without Legal Necessity Is Voidable, Not Void: Madras High Court Dismisses Sons’ Appeal Demand for Gold at 'Chhoochhak' Ceremony Not Dowry – Demand Must Connected With Marriage: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claims Cannot Be Decided on Sympathy – Involvement of Offending Vehicle Must Be Proved: Supreme Court Compassionate Appointment Is Not a Ladder for Career Advancement – It Ends Once Exercised: Supreme Court In Absence of Minimum Fee, Compounding by Revenue Officials Is Not Criminal Misconduct: Kerala High Court Clarifies Power, Quashes FIR Against Two Accused If You’re in Service on 31st March, You Get the Revised Pay: Supreme Court Affirms Right to 2017 Pay Revision for March 2016 Retirees Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court

A sinister plot to transform India into an Islamic State: Bombay High Court denies bail to PFI members accused of conspiring against the government

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


he Bombay High Court has denied bail to three members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) accused of conspiring to wage war against the Government of India. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices A. S. Gadkari and Shyam C. Chandak, emphasizes the gravity of the allegations and the substantial evidence presented, including electronic records and witness testimonies. The court underscored the appellants' roles in a broader onspiracy to destabilize the nation.

The appellants, Razi Ahmed Khan, Kayyum Abdul Shaikh, and Unais Umar Khaiyyam Patel, were arrested following an FIR filed on September 22, 2022. The case centers around a secret meeting held on June 14, 2022, in Malegaon, where the accused allegedly incited members of the Muslim community to wage war against the government. The prosecution asserts that the appellants conspired to spread hatred and instigate violence to achieve heir goal of transforming India into an Islamic state by 2047.

The court highlighted the substantial evidence against the appellants, including electronic records, witness statements, and documents seized from their devices. "The material on record clearly indicates that prima facie evidence of conspiracy to commit offences punishable under Section 121-A of the IPC is made out," the judgment stated. The court noted that the ppellants' involvement in the conspiracy was evident from their communications and activities.

Addressing the appellants' arguments that their actions did not amount to waging war, the court observed, "Section 121-A of IPC encapsulates within it even planning to wage war against the State. The evidence on record discloses that the Appellants have participated in spreading hatred against the State and propagating an anti-national agenda." The judgment emphasized the appellants' roles in furthering the PFI's Vision-2047, a document outlining plans to transform India into an Islamic state.

The court carefully examined the specific roles of each appellant. Razi Ahmed han, accused of inciting violence and spreading radical messages, was found to be a key figure in the conspiracy. Kayyum Abdul Shaikh was implicated in teaching martial arts to like-minded individuals and spreading provocative messages. Unais Umar Khaiyyam Patel, a computer expert, was accused of deleting incriminating data from the devices of PFI members. The court found hat each appellant's actions were interconnected and contributed to the conspiracy.

The judgment extensively discussed the legal principles surrounding conspiracy and the application of Section 121-A of the IPC. "The conspiracy to achieve the object of Vision-2047 is distant and far, but given the geographical vastness of India, it may take that much period to bring the said Justice A. S. Gadkari remarked, "The roles of Appellants are interconnected lity," the court noted. The bench emphasized that the severity of the charges and the potential impact on national security warranted the denial of bail.

eparable as far as the allegation of conspiracy under Section 121-A  and insf IPC is concerned. The evidence alleged against the Appellants is serious in nature."

The Bombay High Court's decision to deny bail underscores the judiciary's commitment to addressing serious threats to national security. By affirming the lower courts' findings, the judgment sends a strong message about the gravity of conspiracy charges and the need to uphold the integrity and security of the nation. The trial court has been requested to expedite the trial, emphasizing the urgency and importance of the case.

Date of Decision: June 11, 2024

Razi Ahmed Khan & Others v. The State of Maharashtra

Latest Legal News