Trademark Pirates Face Legal Wrath: Delhi HC Enforces Radio Mirchi’s IP Rights Swiftly Madras High Court Upholds Extended Adjudication Period Under Customs Act Amid Allegations of Systemic Lapses Disputes Over Religious Office Will Be Consolidated for Efficient Adjudication, Holds Karnataka High Court Motive Alone, Without Corroborative Evidence, Insufficient for Conviction : High Court Acquits Accused in 1993 Murder Case Himachal Pradesh HC Criticizes State for Delays: Orders Timely Action on Employee Grievances Calls for Pragmatic Approach to Desertion and Cruelty in Divorce Cases: Calcutta High Court Orders Fresh Trial Juvenile Tried as Adult: Bombay High Court Validates JJB Decision, Modifies Sentence to 7 Years Retrospective Application of Amended Rules for Redeployment Declared Invalid: Orissa High Court NDPS Act Leaves No Room for Leniency: HC Requires Substantial Proof of Innocence for Bail No Protection Without Performance: MP High Court Denies Relief Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act Delays in processing applications for premature release cannot deprive convicts of interim relief: Karnataka High Court Grants 90-Day Parole Listing All Appeals Arising From A Common Judgment Before The Same Bench Avoids Contradictory Rulings: Full Bench of the Patna High Court. Age Claims in Borderline Cases Demand Scrutiny: Madhya Pradesh HC on Juvenile Justice Act Bishop Garden Not Available for Partition Due to Legal Quietus on Declaration Suit: Madras High Court Exclusion of Certain Heirs Alone Does Not Make a Will Suspicious: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Will Proof of Delivery Was Never Requested, Nor Was it a Payment Precondition: Delhi High Court Held Courier Firm Entitled to Payment Despite Non-Delivery Allegations Widowed Daughter Eligible for Compassionate Appointment under BSNL Scheme: Allahabad High Court Brutality of an Offence Does Not Dispense With Legal Proof: Supreme Court Overturns Life Imprisonment of Two Accused Marumakkathayam Law | Partition Is An Act By Which The Nature Of The Property Is Changed, Reflecting An Alteration In Ownership: Supreme Court Motor Accident Claim | Compensation Must Aim To Restore, As Far As Possible, What Has Been Irretrievably Lost: Supreme Court Awards Rs. 1.02 Crore Personal Criticism Of Judges Or Recording Findings On Their Conduct In Judgments Must Be Avoided: Supreme Court Efficiency In Arbitral Proceedings Is Integral To Effective Dispute Resolution. Courts Must Ensure That Arbitral Processes Reach Their Logical End: Supreme Court Onus Lies On The Propounder To Remove All Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding A Will To The Satisfaction Of The Court: Calcutta High Court Deeds of Gift Not Governed by Section 22-B of Registration Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Testimony Of  Injured Witness Carries A Built-In Guarantee Of Truthfulness: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds Conviction for Attempted Murder POCSO | Conviction Cannot Be Sustained Without Conclusive Proof Of Minority - Burden Lies On The Prosecution: Telangana High Court Credible Eyewitness Account, Supported By Forensic Corroboration, Creates An Unassailable Chain Of Proof That Withstands Scrutiny: Punjab and Haryana High Court Jammu & Kashmir High Court Grants Bail to Schizophrenic Mother Accused of Murdering Infant Son

Grave Impact on National Security: Delhi High Court Denies Concurrent Sentences for ISIS-Linked Terrorist

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has denied a petition seeking concurrent running of sentences awarded to Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed in two separate cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). The judgment, delivered by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on June 7, 2024, underscores the distinct nature of the offenses and their severe impact on national security and societal harmony.

Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed, the petitioner, was convicted in two separate cases related to terrorist activities linked to ISIS. The first case, RC-09/2016/NIA/DLI, involved a plot to attack the Ardh Kumbh Mela in Haridwar, for which he was sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment by the Patiala House Court, Delhi. The second case, RC-02/2016/NIA/MUM, involved conspiracies to recruit for ISIS and plan assassinations, resulting in an eight-year sentence by the NIA Special Court in Greater Bombay. Sayyed sought the concurrent running of these sentences, arguing that the total period of imprisonment would be disproportionately severe.

Principle of Separate Transactions:

The court emphasized that the offenses in the two cases were distinct and involved different facts, thereby disqualifying the principle of “same transaction” for concurrent sentencing. Justice Sharma noted, “The petitioner was convicted in two different cases registered by NIA, one in Mumbai and another in Delhi, for which separate trials were conducted, and the offenses cannot be termed as part of a ‘same transaction.’”

Totality of Sentences:

Addressing the principle of totality, the court observed that the petitioner was not awarded the maximum sentence of life imprisonment in either case, reflecting leniency by the trial courts. “The petitioner has already been awarded lesser sentences by both the learned Trial Courts, and thus, consecutive running of sentences will not cause prejudice to the petitioner as far as the total period of sentence vis-à-vis the offense committed by him is concerned,” stated the judgment.

Gravity of Offenses and Societal Impact:

The court highlighted the grave nature of the offenses, involving terrorist plots and the recruitment for ISIS, which posed significant threats to national security and societal harmony. Justice Sharma remarked, “Terrorism not only threatens national security but also the very fabric of society by targeting innocent civilians and institutions indiscriminately. The impact of such terrorist activities on society is profound and far-reaching.”

Justice Sharma explicitly stated, “No further leniency can be granted to the petitioner by allowing concurrent running of sentences awarded to him by the Trial Courts in Greater Bombay and in Delhi, given the grave nature of his offenses.”

The Delhi High Court’s decision to deny the petition for concurrent sentences underscores the judiciary’s firm stance on handling cases of terrorism with due severity. By upholding the consecutive running of sentences, the judgment reinforces the legal framework’s commitment to addressing the serious threats posed by terrorist activities to national security and societal harmony. This ruling is expected to serve as a significant precedent in similar cases, emphasizing the importance of distinct sentencing for separate criminal acts involving national security threats.

Date of Decision: June 7, 2024

Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed vs. National Investigation Agency

Similar News