Delhi High Court rejects bail plea of two Indian Mujahideen members

THe new delhi heights margaret court has denied bail bond to deuce men accused of operating the Rajasthan module of the banned outfit Indian Mujahideen, who were booked under anti-terror laws.A bench of justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain rejected the plea of the two men, Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, in its verdict delivered on Friday. The court observed that they were active members of the banned terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen and key operatives responsible for running its Rajasthan module, adding that they had links with the outfit’s leadership, not only in India but also in Pakistan.“The appellants are persons who have been in touch with the leadership of the Indian Mujahideen not only in India but also in Pakistan. They have spread Jihadi material and imparted training in making bombs,” the court said.The court further noted that the seizures made in Jaipur and Jodhpur were substantial, emphasising that the materials recovered, including chemicals, electronic equipment, IED components, arms, detonators and digital devices, had the potential to cause significant damage and could not be ignored.“The manner in which the appellants have been wholly entrenched in the activities of the Indian Mujahideen leaves no manner of doubt that, in order to prevent them from indulging in anti-national activities and terrorist activities, and considering the fact that they pose a flight risk and could also have an impact on other witnesses who are to appear in the matter, this court is of the opinion that they do not deserve to be released on bail,” the court added.In its ruling, the court also rejected their grounds of being released on parity. “No parity can be drawn between the material seized from Mohd Maroof (one of those named in the case), which was only in the form of digital devices and the explosive material seized from these two appellants. Thus, they cannot claim parity merely on the ground that Mohd Maroof has been granted bail by this court,” the court said.The two were arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell in March 2014 and charged under provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).The case originated in November 2011, when police apprehended an Indian Mujahideen member whose interrogation led to the identification of several others. Subsequently, 18 individuals including Yasin Bhatkal, were arrested, and large quantities of explosives, chemicals, arms, and ammunition were seized.During their interrogation Ansari and Azhar admitted to being members of the outfit and to being in contact with Riyaz Bhatkal, Waqas and Tehsin Akhtar. They allegedly revealed plans to carry out a terrorist attack in Delhi on Riyaz Bhatkal’s directions, along with involvement in modules operating in Bharatpur, Sikar and Jodhpur. Police further alleged that they attempted to manufacture poison using chemicals such as magnesium sulphate, acetone and castor seeds, with the intent to send poisoned letters to targets.The trial court had earlier denied them bail in January through two separate orders, against which they approached the Delhi high court.In their petitions, the two men, represented by advocate Deeksha Dwivedi, argued that out of the 25 individuals named in the case, 11 had already pleaded guilty, one had died, and 13 were still facing trial. They also pointed out that a co-accused, similarly placed, had been granted bail. The counsel further submitted that the FIR registered by the Delhi Police pertains to a less serious offence compared to those registered in Jodhpur and Jaipur. In one of the Jaipur cases, although the two men were convicted, the court suspended their sentences. It was also argued that the two had already spent almost 12 years in custody.The Delhi Police Special Cell, represented by additional public prosecutor Ritesh Bahri, along with advocate Divya Yadav, submitted that the FIR registered by the Special Cell is the parent FIR and the ones registered in Jaipur and Jodhpur were subsequent to its registration.