Delhi court discharges two accused in SIMI, IM revival case citing weak prosecution
Judge says prosecution failed to establish prima facie conspiracy under UAPA, orders release
A Delhi court has discharged two men accused of conspiring to revive the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Indian Mujahideen (IM), holding that the prosecution failed to make out a prima facie case against them.
Additional Sessions Judge Amit Bansal, in an order dated 20 December, discharged Abdul Subhan Qureshi alias Abdus Subhan alias Tauqueer and Ariz Khan alias Junaid alias Salim, who were facing charges under Sections 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the IPC.
The court noted that the chargesheet largely relied on disclosure and confessional statements allegedly made by the accused while in police custody, which are inadmissible in evidence in the absence of any recovery or discovery of facts.
“There is absolutely no admissible material on record in the chargesheet of the present case to show or raise a grave suspicion against both the accused persons that they entered into a conspiracy to revive activity of banned terrorist organisation SIMI and IM in India or that they were members of the said banned terrorist organisations,” the court said.
Observing that there was insufficient material to frame charges, the judge ordered the discharge of both accused from the case. The court also directed their immediate release from judicial custody, if not required in connection with any other case.
The prosecution, represented by the Delhi Police Special Cell, had alleged that the two men were senior cadres of SIMI and IM and part of an international conspiracy involving meetings in countries such as Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates to rejuvenate sleeper cells in India. The case stemmed from intelligence gathered following a blast in Bijnor in 2014, police had said.
However, the court observed that the mere existence of other criminal cases or chargesheets against the accused could not, by itself, justify framing charges in the present matter.
Sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA relate to conspiracy and membership of terrorist organisations. With the discharge order, the proceedings against the two accused in this case stand closed.