Court Finds Prima Facie Evidence Against Appellant for Involvement in Terror Plot Under UAPA
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has denied bail to Mohamed Thalha, who stands accused of providing logistical support for a terrorist act, as part of a conspiracy involving the banned terrorist outfit ISIS. The Division Bench, comprising Dr. Anita Sumanth and Sunder Mohan JJ, upheld the decision of the Special Court under the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, which had earlier rejected Thalha's bail plea.
The appellant, Mohamed Thalha, was charged under various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), including Sections 16, 18, 20, 38, and 39, along with charges under the Indian Penal Code and the Explosive Substances Act. The prosecution, represented by Mr. ARL Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General, alleged that Thalha had procured a Maruti 800 car, which was later used in a bomb blast in Coimbatore, indicating his involvement in the terror conspiracy.
The court examined testimonies from protected witnesses and digital evidence linking Thalha to the conspiracy. It was alleged that Thalha, under the guise of a used car dealer, provided the vehicle to the main accused, Jamesha Mubeen, who died in the blast. The prosecution argued that Thalha's actions were not part of regular business transactions but were intended to support the terror act.
Mr. Vikram Veerasamy, counsel for Thalha, contended that his client was merely conducting his business as a car dealer and that the evidence against him was insufficient to prove his involvement in the conspiracy. He further argued that being a sympathizer of a particular ideology does not constitute an offense under UAPA.
However, the court found that the evidence, including digital communications and witness testimonies, established a prima facie case against Thalha. The court highlighted a meeting between Thalha, the deceased Mubeen, and another accused, where they allegedly discussed plans for a violent act against a specific community.
The judgment also directed the establishment of exclusive Special Courts for the expeditious trial of NIA and UAPA cases, as per the Supreme Court's guidelines, to ensure timely justice.
Bottom Line :
Bail under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA - Appellant alleged to be part of a terror conspiracy and provided logistical support for a terrorist act - Evidence includes protected witness testimony, digital evidence, and connection with a proscribed ideology - Court finds prima facie case against appellant, denies bail.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 16, 18, 20, 38, 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Sections 34, 120B, 153A of the Indian Penal Code; Section 3(a) of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908; Section 43-D(5) of UAPA.
Mohamed Thalha v. Union of India, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2968886
