Dawood Ibrahim Is Terrorist In ‘Individual Capacity’; Association With Him On Pretext That One Belongs To D-Gang Would Not Attract Section 20 UAPA: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court observed that Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar was declared as terrorist in his ‘individual category’ under UAPA therefore, any association with him on the pretext that the person belongs to D-Gang would not attract provisions under Section 20 UAPA.
Section 20 prescribes that any person who is a member of a terrorist gang or a terrorist organisation, that is involved in terrorist acts, shall be punishable with Imprisonment.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by appellants accused no.1 and accused no 2 who were alleged to be involved in offences under Sections 17, 18, and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 along with Sections 121A and 120B of the IPC, and Sections 8C, 20, and 29 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande noted Section 20 UAPA and Section 164 CrPC statements that referred Parvez Vaid as a Member of D-gang and observed, “it would not attract the offence u/s.20, as by the amendment in Schedule IV, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, has been declared as a terrorist in individual capacity, and therefore, any association with him on the pretext that a person belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang will not attract the provisions of Section 20.”
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Rishi Bhuta appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The Appellants were accused under the UAPA, IPC, and NDPS Act. After receiving information about illegal activities linked the ATS searched accused no. 1’s home and seized phones and detained him overnight. No contraband was found with Vaid, while 600 grams of ganja were recovered from Bhiwandiwala. The ATS alleged Vaid transferred Rs.25,000 to a Dawood gang member and Bhiwandiwala ordered ganja from abroad using the dark web and paid in bitcoin. The Court previously asked the Public Prosecutor to justify charges under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA, but only Section 20 charges were supported by evidence.
The Court said that to attract the provisions of Section 20 of UAPA, which has prescribed punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or an organisation, it is necessary to refer to the concept of terrorist gang/terrorist organisation which has been assigned a definite connotation in Section 2(l) and 2(m).
The Court noted that Chapter VI of the UAPA allows the Central Government to list terrorist organisations and individuals in the Ist and IVth Schedules, respectively. The government can also add names based on UN Security Council resolutions or to combat international terrorism.
The Court noted that UAPA has segregated the activities of an individual, which would amount to a terrorist act on one hand and the activities by the terrorist gang and terrorist organization, on the other.
The Court said that the quantity of seized ganja is neither commercial nor intermediate, therefore, the bar for releasing him on bail under Section 37 shall not come in its way. “Mere sharing of the pictures of Narcotics or prohibited substances definitely do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned orders and allowed appeals.
Cause Title: Parvez Zubair Vaid v. The State of Maharashtra (Neutral Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:28377-DB)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Adv. Mihir Desai, Adv. Samsher Garud, Adv. Vighnesh Iyer and Adv. Dhwani Parekh
Respondent: Adv. Rishi Bhuta, Adv. Vivek Pandey, Adv. Ashish Dubey, Adv. Ujjwal Gandhi, Adv. Ankita Bamboli, APP S.V. Gavand and ACP Satish Gadhave