Being an MD Doctor, Does Not Give a Clean Chit: Delhi HC In Plea of Doctor Accused of Links with ISIS
The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, heard the bail application filed by one Abdul Rehman alias Dr Brave, who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for his alleged association with the terrorist group ISIS.
Advocate Tamanna Pankaj, representing the accused, repeatedly submitted before the court that the accused was a qualified ophthalmologist from MS Ramaiah Medical College, Bangalore. The court, while accepting her submission, raised suspicion about the laser guide along with other unexplained materials allegedly found at his house during the search and seizure.
Therefore, the bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar stated, "he has done all his studies. He is an MD from MS Ramaiah Medical College, but this does not give him a clean chit".
The accused submitted that his arrest stemmed from a telephonic conversation regarding his intent to provide medical assistance to refugees. However, the NIA asserted that videos related to ISIS, Osama Bin Laden, and other materials containing pro-hate content were recovered from his mobile phone.
During the hearing, Advocate Pankaj contended that as an ophthalmologist, the presence of an oscilloscope in the accused’s residence was consistent with his medical profession. She further argued that the NIA’s remand application included exhibits suggesting that certain common materials found at his residence could allegedly be used to construct a model rocket launcher. She dismissed the claim as speculative, noting that such materials could also be found in the homes of individuals engaged in other professions, such as bakers or lawyers.
The court acknowledged that the accused had been incarcerated for four years and eight months and accepted the fact that he was a young medical professional. However, Justice Prasad noted that other arguments presented by the defense were not acceptable to the Bench.
Advocate Pankaj also addressed claims regarding the accused’s past travel to Syria in 2013, denying that he had suffered a bullet injury there, as alleged by the NIA. She stated that he had visited the country only once, and that too with a humanitarian organization, ‘Doctors Without Borders’. She further submitted that the witness who made statements against her client was not even being prosecuted in the case.
Citing the Supreme Court case of Vernon v State of Maharashtra, Advocate Pankaj argued that the charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, were not made out. She read from paragraph 26 of a Supreme Court judgment, asserting that the acts referred to in sub-clauses (a) and (c) of Section 15(1) could not be attributed to the accused. She also submitted that the framing of charges was challenged in connected appeals before the High Court.
In response to the court’s inquiry about the presence of a laser guide, Advocate Pankaj reiterated that what was found was not a laser guide but an oscilloscope, which was neither examined nor mentioned in the remand application. The court also noted a three-month delay between the seizure of exhibits and their production, acknowledging the potential for tampering during that period, though observing it as the maximum extent to which the defense’s case could be stretched.
Advocate Pankaj asserted that the accused’s failure to plead guilty stemmed from his commitment to serving the underprivileged as a doctor, and not due to any culpability. The court, however, observed that while the accused held a medical degree, it could not serve as grounds for exoneration.
The court, therefore, granted liberty to the accused to either withdraw the current appeal and file before an appropriate forum or let the court reserve order in this appeal. Advocate Pankaj, however, suggested examination of the main witness of the DRDO and then continuing with the proceedings of the case. The court further listed the matter for September 25, 2025.
For Petitioner: Advocates Warisha Farasat, Tamanna Pankaj, Ahmad Ibrahim, Priya Vats and Mreganka Kukreja
For Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi with Advocates Jatin, Amit Rohila and Aniket Kumar Singh
Case Title: Abdul Rehman v NIA (CRL.A. 27/2025)