The Madhya Pradesh High Court has denied bail to an accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, after the seizure of incriminating literature related to the ideology of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).
The Division Bench of Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Anuradha Shukla observed that since the provisions of UAPA have been invoked against the accused, there were two conditions for bail in such cases.
First, if the court was satisfied that the entire material collected by the investigation agency did not constitute a prima facie case against the accused. Second, a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period, amounting to violation of his fundamental rights.
In the present case, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) recovered various incriminating videos, audios, images and documents related to ISIS from the accused, said the Bench, adding that other literature related to Jihad and military training of Jihad, as well as promoting ISIS was also recovered from the accused.
It also considered the details of phone records submitted by NIA, which revealed that the accused shared photographs related to ISIS and obscene photographs of Hindu deities through his phone. He used an application namely permadelete to delete the data from his phone regularly. Digital analysis further revealed that the present appellant and co-accused Mohd Adil Khan were discussing about ISIS in code words, noted the Bench.
It further took into consideration the allegation that the accused wanted to attack Ordnance Factory in Jabalpur, an entity of defence.
The High Court observed that could not express undue leniency to a person facing serious charge of terrorism and unlawful activities. The trial was set at full motion and there was every possibility of the trial being completed in its due course.
Considering the overall facts and circumstances, the Bench said it was not inclined to grant bail to the appellant at this stage.
During the course of hearing, the High Court said religious terrorism was a tragic and dangerous phenomenon, which distorted the true teachings of faith and caused immense harm to individuals and societies.
The Division Bench, however, stressed that while roots of religious terrorism were deep and complex, no religion inherently supported violence or terror.