Mere association with Dawood Ibrahim will not amount to terror gang membership under UAPA: Bombay High Court
- In Reports
- 08:02 PM, Jul 20, 2024
- Myind Staff
The Bombay High Court recently stated that being associated with Dawood Ibrahim, who has been designated a terrorist under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), does not qualify as membership in a terrorist gang or organization under the law.
The Bombay High Court's division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande reasoned that Dawood Ibrahim has been designated a terrorist solely in his "individual capacity." Therefore, mere association with him or being part of the D-gang/Dawood gang cannot be sufficient grounds to invoke Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which pertains to membership in a terrorist gang or organisation.
The Court clarified that the UAPA distinguishes between provisions concerning individual activities and those concerning terrorist groups or organisations. Section 20 specifically deals with the punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation.
The Court's observation was based on the material presented, which included a Section 164 statement referring to Parvez Vaid (the petitioner) as a member of the D-gang. The bench noted that under the amended Schedule IV of the UAPA, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar has been declared a terrorist in his individual capacity. Therefore, any association with Dawood Ibrahim or being labelled as belonging to the D-gang/Dawood gang would not suffice to trigger the provisions of Section 20 of the UAPA.
The Bombay High Court made these observations while adjudicating on petitions filed by Parvez Zubair Vaid and Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala, who are accused in a case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Apart from being accused of membership in a terrorist organisation, they were also charged with conspiracy and fundraising for terrorist activities. Additionally, Bhiwandiwala faced allegations related to the recovery of 600 grams of ganja from his premises under the NDPS Act. Vaid and Bhiwandiwala sought bail from the Court, arguing that there was no evidence linking them to the alleged offenses.
During the proceedings, the police conceded that there was insufficient material in the charge sheet to justify invoking Section 17 (punishment for raising funds for a terrorist act) and Section 18 (punishment for conspiracy) of the UAPA. However, they defended the invocation of Section 20 of the UAPA. The police presented witnesses who claimed to know Vaid as a member of the D-Company (Dawood Ibrahim's alleged criminal syndicate).
The prosecution pointed out a ₹25,000 transaction by Parvez with an individual closely linked to Ibrahim. However, after reviewing the evidence and considering that the UAPA distinguishes between the actions of individuals and organizations, the Court ruled that these statements were insufficient to apply Section 20 to Vaid.
Regarding Bhiwandiwala, the Court found no evidence connecting him to the 'D' gang. Concerning the NDPS Act charges, the Court noted that only 600 grams of ganja were recovered, a quantity it deemed small and not commercial or intermediate.
The Court noted that Section 37 of the NDPS Act, which restricts bail for offenses involving commercial quantities of drugs, did not apply to Bhiwandiwala due to the small amount of ganja involved. Additionally, it clarified that merely sharing pictures of narcotics or prohibited substances does not constitute an offense under the NDPS Act. Based on these findings, the Court granted bail to both accused individuals.
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, along with Advocates Samsher Garud, Vighnesh Iyer, and Dhwani Parekh, represented accused Parvez Zubair Vaid in court. Advocates Rishi Bhuta, Vivek Pandey, Ashish Dubey, Ujjwal Gandhi, and Ankita Bamboli appeared on behalf of accused Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala. Assistant Public Prosecutor SP Gavand represented the State in the proceedings.
Image Source: Free Press Journal
Comments