"You have no idea what your parents had to go through," Bombay High Court to person accused of joining ISIS

The factual matrix of a case involving a young person who had left India, gone to Syria and allegedly joining ISIS before returning to India prompted the Bombay High Court to make some pertinent observations about the inconsiderate nature of the accused's actions..A bench of Justices SS Shinde and Manish Pitale mused why a 21-year-old boy would think of going to Iraq leaving his parents and family in grief..“Why would a 21 yr old go to Iraq for people who he has never met in his life by leaving his family behind? Don’t you have enough suffering around you? You maybe immature.. like you said. You have no idea what your parents had to go through.”.The Court was hearing a plea by National Investigation Agency (NIA) against an order of the lower court which had granted bail to accused Areeb Majeed. .Majeed, who travelled to Syria to allegedly join the global terrorist outfit, ISIS, was arrested in November 2014 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after he returned from Syria..Majeed was charged with commission of offences under Section 125 of IPC which is of waging war against government in alliance with government of India. He was also charged with Sections 16 (punishment for terrorist act) and 18 (punishment for conspiracy) of the UAPA..NIA represented by Additional Solicitor General Anil Singh stated that they had found enough evidence against Majeed which was present in the chargesheet and the supplementary chargesheets..Singh argued that Majeed travelled back to India with an ulterior motive to carry out unlawful activities being a hardcore follower of ISIS. He claimed that participation in terrorist activities was serious and there was material available in support of his activities..It was also claimed that Majeed had a bullet injury when he had come back to India. He showed the court, pictures of Majeed allegedly showing the ISIS victory sign and holding their flag."In such a case I cannot bring a witness from Iran. Ultimately it comes down to facts and circumstances of the case," Singh said. .Majeed, arguing in-person, contended that the trial was being conducted for offences which were neither within Indian borders nor against India.“Present trial is not for any offences in India, against India or anything pertaining to India. The charge of ulterior motive is not present in the chargesheet, but was later added by the police.” Majeeb said..Majeed claimed that the evidence collected by NIA could not prima facie prove the offences charged by them..He also questioned the sources of the evidence collected by the NIA adding that the NIA was relying on a tweet from a social media account which did not even belong to the accused.“How did NIA have access to that account if it is indeed being run by some accused?”.It was also his argument that he had gone abroad to help people there and not for any terrorist activities. .“I was moved by the people, I was helping those people, and I have never engaged in any terrorist activities," he said. .Importantly, Majeed submitted that the offences for which he has been charged with entails punishment of only upto 5 years imprisonment since he has not caused any injury to killed anyone as per the chargesheet itself. He highlighted that he has already spent more than 6 years in jail as undertrial and that in itself is a ground for grant of bail. .In this regard, he placed reliance upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in the Union of India v. KA Najeeb..Majeed pointed out that the trial was taking a long as there are over 106 witnesses mentioned in the chargesheet..He also clarified that the sign and the text on the flag which he was allegedly holding, were Islamic symbol and verses and had nothing to do with ISIS.It was further submitted that it was the NIA who got him back to India though they are refusing to admit that.“They do not want to admit the role they played in my return. "I am not shying away from what wrong I did, but the allegations against me are hard to digest” he concluded his arguments..“If you would have utilised your abilities to the best at the age of 21 it would have been a matter of joy for the family and for the country,” Justice Pitale stated..“I do regret that, it is not like I don’t regret,” Majeed replied..After hearing both parties at length, the Court reserved its verdict at 7.30 pm. The Court will pronounce its verdict on February 23, 2021 when Majeed has been directed to remain present.