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.

ORDER :

A.Y. KOGJE, J.

1. This application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for suspension of sentence and/or grant of bail to the applicant pending the appeal.

2. The applicant is original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.47 of 2018 in which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The detail of which in tabular from is as under:-

3. The aforesaid impugned judgment and order convicted two persons and the present applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024, which came to be admitted by an order dated 29.01.2024 by this Court.

4. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has argued that it is a case of absolutely no evidence as the only evidence is of the witnesses, who have narrated a story in which no role of the applicant is coming out. It is a case where on surmises, a theory is developed by the prosecution that the applicant and other accused are indulging in Anti National Activity and after being radicalized are indulging in terrorist activities. However, there is no instance of any terror activity nor is there any link established by the prosecution between the applicant or any known terrorist or notified terrorist organization.

4.1 It is submitted that though the allegations against the applicant are to be in contact with the terrorist organization and in touch with the terrorist overseas, but there is no investigation with regard to those named terrorists working overseas nor any connection of the applicant with them. It is submitted that in fact, when the applicant was being investigated, at that time, the so-called ISIS terror organization was not even notified as a terror organization under the relevant provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short “UAPA, Act”). It is submitted that ISIS was declared as a banned organization in February-2015, whereas the activities which are alleged against the applicant were prior to February-2015 and therefore, connection even if any with ISIS cannot be considered to be a connection with a banned terror organization. The permissions for prosecution were sanctioned for 80 accused who were arrested earlier under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. For the subsequently arrested accused, charge-sheet is required to be submitted before Court. There is a prima facie case against the aforesaid accused having his involvement in commission of the offence under Section 120 (B), 121(A), 125 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 13, 17, 18, 38 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

4.2 Learned senior advocate for the applicant has argued on the ground of Article 21 of the Constitution of India that a liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed except by procedure established by law. In support of this contention, he has argued that for prosecuting the applicant under UAPA Act, sanction is an essential requirement. He has drawn attention of this Court to the provision pertaining to sanction, namely Section 45(2) of UAPA Act and submitted that this section provides for exercise of review to be undertaken by the reviewing authority before grant of sanction. According to learned advocate for the applicant, the prosecution has not established, during the course of trial, that such exercise by the reviewing authority has taken place, thereby complyin