Read Time: 07 minutes
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Sharma held, “Section 38 of UAPA deals with membership of a terrorist organization and Section 39 proscribes support to a terrorist organization… Broadly, therefore, support to a terrorist organization either monetarily or otherwise in the form of networking, meetings, etc. is clearly prohibited”.
The Delhi High Court, on Friday, dismissed an appeal filed by one, Zafar Abbas, challenging the dismissal of his bail application by the trial court. The accused was apprehended for supporting Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) by establishing a widespread network of over-ground workers.
The court further opined that “when a terrorist organization like LeT is involved, which has already taken responsibility for various terror attacks in India, the tacit or active support to such an organization cannot be condoned in any manner”.
Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, for the NIA, emphasized that direct evidence established a connection between the Appellant and Hyder, a LeT operative based in Pakistan. It was submitted that the Appellant was an active overground worker for the LeT in India, as demonstrated by multiple facts in the charge sheet. It was contended that the evidence left no doubt about the Appellant’s guilt and that the NIA had established more than a prima facie case against him.
However, Advocate Sanjiv Jha, appearing for the Appellant, argued that the Appellant, using a keypad mobile rather than a smartphone, could not have operated a WhatsApp account. Further, it was submitted that the IMEI number of the phone recovered from the Appellant’s residence ended with the digits 1968, contrary to the NIA's claim that it ended with 1960. Additionally, it was emphasized that while the chargesheet had been filed, charges were yet to be framed in the case.
The court noted that the organizations listed in the First Schedule of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were deemed terrorist organizations. Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) appeared as Entry 5 in the said schedule.
The court observed that the modus operandi of LeT typically involved recruiting youth, creating fraudulent bank accounts for terror funding, using digital devices for communication, and coordinating with handlers in foreign countries such as Pakistan. These activities had caused extensive harm, including loss of life, property damage, and institutional destruction. The UAPA authorized various measures, including freezing assets, to prevent terrorist acts, the court added.
The court further observed that Sections 38 and 39 of the UAPA prohibited membership in and support of terrorist organizations, whether monetary or through networking, meetings, or other means. The Appellant allegedly engaged in opening fraudulent bank accounts, transferring funds for unlawful activities, and assisting in recruitment for LeT.
The court also highlighted that, “In today’s world of global communication, a meeting need not be merely a physical meeting. It could even be meetings, arrangement or management of meetings through electronic/digital platforms, through electronic communication, etc”.
Additionally, the court opined that the chain of events linking the Appellant to fraudulent transactions, co-accused, and LeT operatives was established through recovered evidence, including documents, call detail records, and location data.
Therefore, the court held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate innocence at this stage, and the chain of evidence demonstrated his association with LeT operatives and activities. Consequently, the court found no reason to interfere with the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.
For Appellant: Advocates Sanjiv Jha, Vikash K. Singh, Tusha Chawla, Sarthak Singh and Sachin BhattFor Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi with Advocates Jatin, Aniket Kumar, and Amit RohilaCase Title: Zafar Abbas v NIA (2025:DHC:72-DB)
Please Login or Register
