Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

Meetings Alone Do Not Prove Conspiracy: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two in Terror Conspiracy Case

05 October 2024 8:54 PM

By: sayum


Karnataka High Court acquitted Apsarpasha (Accused No.3) and Mohammed Fahad (Accused No.2) of all charges in the high-profile terror conspiracy case, while reducing the sentence of Syed Abdul Rehman (Accused No.1). Although the court upheld Abdul Rehman’s conviction for illegal possession of firearms and explosives, it dismissed the charges of conspiracy to wage war against India under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The case began in May 2012 when Syed Abdul Rehman was arrested in Bengaluru after police received intelligence suggesting that he was in possession of a firearm supplied by Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives from Pakistan. Rehman was found carrying a 0.32 caliber revolver and was linked to explosive materials hidden at Jnana Bharati campus. Investigations led to the arrest of Mohammed Fahad, a Pakistani national, and Apsarpasha, with accusations that the trio conspired in prison to carry out terror attacks in India.

The trial court convicted all three individuals under various provisions of the UAPA, IPC, and Explosive Substances Act, sentencing them to lengthy imprisonment. The accused appealed the convictions to the High Court.

Terror Conspiracy Charges: The prosecution’s case centered on meetings in jail between the accused and their telephonic conversations. However, the court concluded that these meetings and phone calls alone were not enough to prove a conspiracy to commit terrorism. The court stressed that “mere suspicion cannot replace proof,” acquitting all three from the charges under Sections 120B and 122 IPC and Sections 13, 17, and 18 of UAPA.

Illegal Possession of Firearms and Explosives: The court upheld Syed Abdul Rehman’s conviction for possessing a firearm and explosives without legal authorization. His conviction under the Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act was maintained, though the court reduced his sentence from seven years to three years in light of the applicable legal provisions at the time of the offense.

The High Court acquitted Apsarpasha and Mohammed Fahad of all charges, ordering their immediate release. Syed Abdul Rehman will serve a reduced sentence for arms and explosives possession but was acquitted of all terrorism-related charges. The decision underscores the need for solid evidence when prosecuting conspiracy charges under anti-terror laws.

Date of Decision: 25th September 2024

Syed Abdul Rehman vs. State

Latest Legal News