Supreme court denies bail to lawyer with alleged ISIS links
The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday denied bail to a lawyer, Ubeb Ahmed with purported links to ISIS in a UAPA case. The bench comprising of Chief Justice of India NV Ramana and Justices Surya Kant and Hima Kolhi termed the allegations as serious in nature.
The lawyer was arrested in 2017 under UAPA for allegedly discussing, advocating and disseminating ISIS ideology on social media. It is further alleged that he was involved in recruiting persons and raising funds for the organisation.
The Special Leave Petition was filed against an order of Gujarat High Court from February 2020 dismissing the lawyer’s bail petition. An FIR was filed against him under Sections 13,17,18 and 39 of UAPA, Sections 120 (B), 121(A) and 125 of IPC.
Appearing for the Petitioner, Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave submitted that the petitioner was a lawyer practicing in Surat and has been charged under UAPA on allegations that he was recruiting candidates for ISIS based on posts on Facebook and messages on WhatsApp.
The bench however responded to this saying that they were not on question of UAPA but it is the nature of allegations that have been levelled against the petitioner that is alarming. The bench further pointed out that there was evidence that the petitioner acted as an ISIS agent and some chats even refer to killing a person.
Dave argued that the petitioner has been jailed for 4 years now and no charges have been framed against him as yet. He further submitted that the trial will not end anytime soon and he cannot be kept behind bars indefinitely.
Appearing for the State of Gujarat, SG Tushar Mehta submitted that the delay in commencing the trial could directly be attributable to the petitioner challenging every order of the trial court.
The Gujarat High Court had rejected his bail application on the ground that it had transpired from investigation that the accused has prima facie committed the offence. The court held that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation agains the accused in prima facie true and therefore looking at the allegations and the proviso contained the application cannot be enlarged in bail pending trial.
The Supreme Court ordered that it was not inclined to grant bail to the petitioner, however it directed the concerned Trial Court to expedite the trial and conclude it within a period of one year from the date of communication of this order by sitting 2 days a week and not granting any adjournments to parties.
Case title: Ubeb Ahmed Vs State of Gujrat