Oath accepting ISIS Chief as Caliph of Muslims not incriminating: Bombay High Court grants bail to UAPA accused

The Bombay High Court on Monday granted bail to Mohammad Raisuddin, a man arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in 2016 for allegedly being linked to the Islamic State (ISIS). [Mohammad Raisuddin v. NIA & Ors].According to Justices Revati Mohite Dere and VG Bisht, an oath allegedly signed by the applicant, which the prosecution said showed allegiance to a terrorist organisation, did not seem to be incriminating.“Even a perusal of the Oath (Baith) allegedly written by the appellant, at the highest, appears to be a declaration of the acceptance of one Abi Bakar Al Baghdadi Al Hussaini Al Quraishi as the `Caliph’ of the Muslims. Prima-facie, a perusal of the said Oath (Baith) does not appear to be incriminating,” they held..The appellant before the High Court sought quashing of a 2019 National Investigation Agency (NIA) Special Court order that rejected his bail application..The prosecution relied on conversations that the appellant had with four others over threats to Islam, actions of the ISIS and other issues like beef ban, communal riots, injustice to Muslims in Palestine, etc. As per the witnesses' accounts, the appellant would inspire them to work for Islam, referring to these incidents.Special Public Prosecutor Aruna Kamath Pai opposed the appeal and asserted that no interference was required with the special court order, as there were prima facie serious allegations levelled against the appellant. She argued that delay in commencement of the trial was not a ground for enlarging the appellant on bail.According to the appellant, there was no legitimate evidence to connect him with the alleged offence. His counsel denied that his client either wrote or signed the oath (Baith) pledging allegiance to the ISIS chief, on the basis of which he was arrested.Since he had been in custody since 2016 and not one witness out of the 550 witnesses in the case had been examined, he claimed that the trial would likely take a long time to commence and thus prayed for grant of bail. .The Court noted that the prosecution, in its charge-sheet, had not produced allegedly incriminating WhatsApp chats that connected the accused with the offences.“It is pertinent to note, that admittedly, no Whats App chats have been produced by the prosecution in their charge-sheet, as a result of which, no light is thrown on the nature of discussion/chats/posts allegedly put up by any of the accused. Therefore, in the facts, mere statements of witnesses stating that there was a Whats App group formed, without any material to support the same, the same cannot be relied upon. Infact, none of the witnesses have stated anything incriminating in the said chats,” it stated.It also opined that the alleged discussions between the witnesses and the accused were not to instigate an offence or insurgency.“It is the perception of the witnesses that the said accused had jihadi leanings or were fundamentalists. All the statements, if perused, indicate that the statements are in the realm of discussions and deliberations that took place between the accused and the witnesses. Prima-facie, there is no material to indicate that the appellant instigated the commission of any offence or insurgency, nor that the appellant advocated violent reactions,” it observed.Therefore, it concluded that the statements made during the discussions could not be said to be incriminating.“From a perusal of the said statements, one can reasonably conclude that, at the highest, what took place were mere discussions as to what was transpiring in India and the world and that everyone should work for Islam. The said statements prima-facie cannot be said to be incriminating,” the Court held.Considering the number of witnesses to be examined, the Court concluded that the trial would take time to commence. Therefore, taking the evidence, gravity of charges and the period of incarceration already undergone by the appellant into account, the Court granted him bail, subject to certain conditions..Advocates Mubin Solkar, Aamir Sopariwala and Abdul Raheem Bukhari appeared for the appellant..[Read Judgment]