Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Allahabad High Court has recently denied bail to a man accused of being associated with the terrorist group "Lashkar-e-Taiba".

The bench of Justice Pankaj Bhatia held, "In the present case, from the allegations levlled against the applicant and the FIR that the applicant was administrator of two whatsapp group comprising mainly foreign citizens and the said group was allegedly promoting the acquisition of arms and promoting the group on the basis of religious prejudices. Although, the right to practise and propagate religion is guaranteed under Article 19, however, from the nature of allegations levelled in the FIR, the second part of Section 121-A IPC cannot be said to be not made out. Considering the gravity of the allegation, no case for grant of bail is made out, as such, the bail application is liable to be rejected".

The FIR against the accused namely Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz was lodged alleging that on the basis of the recovery of certain materials, it was revealed that he was engaged in forming a WhatsApp group that used to spread literature that could be termed as jihadi literature.

It was alleged that Imtiyaz was the administrator of the group and used to upload jihadi videos. It was also recorded in the FIR that he had admitted that he wanted to become a jihadi.

It was also allegedly admitted by him that he was associated with the Lashkar group and for the last 15-16 years was running a WhatsApp group.

Allegedly, in the said group, 181 members were there, which included 170 members from Pakistan, three members from Afghanistan, and one member from Malaysia and Bangladesh each, and six members from India.

Allegations were also there that a similar group was being run by Imtiyaz and people were being enticed to join the said group.

On the basis of the said allegation and the recovery, Imtiyaz was charged for an offence under Section 121-A and 153-A of the IPC read with 66 of the IT Act.

Seeking bail for Imtiyaz, his counsel contended that on the basis of the FIR, prima facie, no offence to implicate Imtiyaz under Section 121-A IPC was made out.

He further argued that Imtiyaz was in custody since March 14, 2022, and the offence alleged against him was punishable for a term of five years or less except Section 121-A IPC, which was not even made out.

On the other hand, the bail plea was opposed by the government counsel who argued that Imtiyaz was spreading hatred and promoting anti-India feelings and the WhatsApp group which was alleged to be run by him was also engaged in providing and facilitating the acquisition of weapons, thus, the alleged offence was clearly made out.

Taking note of the submissions made by both parties, court ruled against Imtiyaz and rejected his bail plea. 

Case Title: Inamul Haq Alias Inamul Imtiyaz v. State of UP