Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by Dr. Sabeel Ahmed, an alleged member of the banned terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), seeking discharge in a case related to conspiring to kill important personalities such as leaders, government officials and journalists belonging to the Hindu community in 2012.

A division bench comprising Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice JM Khazi dismissed the writ petition, which was filed challenging the order of the Special NIA court. The Special Court in Bengaluru had dismissed the application for discharge under Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C). This section prevents double jeopardy by ensuring a person acquitted or convicted of an offence is not tried again on the same facts.

The case stems from a First Information Report (FIR) registered on August 29, 2012, at Basaveshwara Nagar police station, Bengaluru, under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Arms Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The investigation was later transferred to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) due to the gravity of the alleged offences. Dr. Ahmed, among other accused, was charged with being part of a terrorist gang inspired by LeT's ideology and plotting to kill Hindu leaders and government officials.

Senior Advocate Kiran S. Javali, representing Ahmed, argued that he had already been acquitted by a Delhi court on similar charges in 2016 and hence, could not be tried again for the same offences. The defence relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Amritlal Ratilal Mehta v. State of Gujarat to support their plea that trying him again in Bengaluru would constitute double jeopardy.

Conversely, the NIA (respondent), represented by Special Public Prosecutor P. Prasanna Kumar, opposed the contentions stating that the charges in Bengaluru were distinct from those in Delhi. The prosecution highlighted that while the Delhi case involved raising funds for terrorist activities, the Bengaluru case specifically concerned targeted killings of Hindu leaders. The prosecution further noted that the witnesses' overlap did not invalidate the charges as the facts and offences in the two cases differed significantly.

The High Court upheld the decision of the special court, citing that the acts constituting offences in the Delhi and Bengaluru cases are not the same, despite similarities. The court clarified that for Section 300 to apply, the accused must have been acquitted or convicted on the same set of facts and offences. However, in this instance, the facts constituting the offences in Bengaluru were distinct from those in Delhi, despite some similarity and overlapping witnesses.

“In the case on hand, Section 300 (1) of Cr.P.C. cannot be attracted at all. The petitioner may have been acquitted by Delhi Court, but that acquittal does not stop the trial by Bengaluru court. In fact the act giving rise to offences with which the petitioner was charged and tried by Delhi court are not same as acts constituting offences for which he is being tried by Bengaluru court. May be the acts have similarity, but they are not same. Some of the witnesses to both the trial may be same, again it is not a ground for invoking Section 300 of Cr.P.C,” the court noted.

The court concluded that Section 300 of Cr.P.C. did not bar the trial in Bengaluru, observing that the Special Court in Bengaluru had appropriately distinguished between the two cases.

“There is no error in the impugned order. Writ petition is therefore dismissed,” the court ruled.

 

Cause Title: Dr. Sabeel Ahmed @ Motu Doctor v NIA [WP No. 20806 OF 2023]