Back
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, AMIT SHARMA
HINA BASHIR BEIGH – Appellant
Versus
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present two appeals have been filed by Hina Bashir Beigh (A-2) and Sadiya Anwar Shaikh (A-4) seeking reduction of their respective sentences imposed by the ld. ASJ-3, NDD, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi vide the order on sentence dated 6th May, 2024.
BRIEF BACKGROUND
3. A First Information Report (hereinafter ‘FIR’) bearing no. 85/2020 was registered by the Special Cell against accused no. 1(‘A-1’) and accused no. 2 (‘A-2’) upon which they were arrested on 8th March, 2020. The allegation was that they were affiliated with the proscribed terrorist organisation Islamic State Khorasan Province (hereinafter ‘ISKP’). The said ISKP is stated to be a part of the ISIS. The FIR alleged that they were carrying out anti-national activities in India.
4. Based on the disclosures made by A-2 upon arrest, certain materials such as an incriminating anti-nationalist magazine named ‘Voice of Hind’ etc. were seized from the house and car of A-2 in support of the above-mentioned allegations. The disclosure also led to the arrest of accused no. 3 (‘A-3’), on 17th March, 2020. In the meantime, the Ministry of Home Affa
The court modified sentences for terrorism-related offences, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach considering both aggravating and mitigating factors.
The court affirmed that association with a terrorist organization with intent to further its activities constitutes a punishable offense under the UA(P) Act.
The court upheld the conviction under UAPA, emphasizing the validity of the sanction for prosecution and the sufficiency of evidence linking the applicant to terrorist activities.
Bail cannot be granted for offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 unless Court comes to conclusion that there is no prima facie case against accused.
The discretion of trial courts in sentencing should only be interfered with on manifest inadequacy; this discretion encompasses proportionality to the crime committed.
The court affirmed that harboring a terrorist under UAPA is a serious offense, justifying the denial of bail due to the evidence suggesting active support of terrorism.
Sufficient evidence existed to justify framing terrorism-related charges against the appellant based on allegations of conspiracy and radicalization supporting a proscribed organization.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
