If Terrorist Activities Are Perpetrated By Fanatics To Achieve Religious Supremacy, Such People Must Blame Themselves On Getting Into Trouble: Karnataka HC
The Karnataka High Court remarked that, if terrorist activities are perpetrated by fanatics to achieve religious supremacy, people of such mindsets must blame themselves if they get into trouble.
The Court remarked thus in a writ petition seeking to quash the sanction order passed under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar and Justice J.M. Khazi observed, “Terrorism has no territorial bounds; though it has nothing to do with any particular religion, if terrorist activities are perpetrated by fanatics to achieve religious supremacy decrying the other religions and thereby pose a threat to integrity, unity and stability of the nation, people of such mind set have to blame themselves if they get into trouble. The initial burden is on the prosecution to establish its case, and if the petitioner or any other accused of this case has the feeling that members of minority community are targeted even though scheduled offence is not committed, the prosecution witnesses can be discredited in the cross-examination.”
Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi and Advocate Mohammed Tahir appeared for the petitioner while Additional Solicitor General of India (ASGI) S.V. Raju appeared for the respondents.
Factual Background -
The petitioner and other accused persons were facing trial for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 201, 204, 212, 302, 341 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 16, 18, 19, and 20 of UAPA on the allegations of killing one person in the year 2022. An FIR was registered for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. After the arrest of some accused persons, the other offences under IPC as mentioned above were added in the FIR. Later, the Central Government directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take up the investigation.
The NIA, having registered the crime invoked Sections 16, 19, and 20 of UAPA in the FIR, held investigation, and filed a charge sheet for the said offences. Hence, the petitioner filed the writ petition before the High Court, seeking to quash the said order issued under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act), the sanction order issued under Section 45 of UAPA, and the order of the Special Court taking cognizance for the said offences.
The High Court in the above regard, said, “At this stage, all that can be stated is prosecution was launched after obtaining sanction, and cognizance of offences under UA(P)A was taken having noticed sanction order being available. If according to the petitioner, the sanction order was issued without applying mind or is invalid for any other reason, the same has to be thrashed out by the trial court after recording evidence. This is not a case of absence of sanction. Therefore this contention also fails.”
The Court noted that, without having details of other cases, the contention of the petitioner cannot be appreciated and even otherwise, decision as to invocation of offences under UAPA has to be taken in the background of facts and circumstances of each case, rather than drawing general inference.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition.
Cause Title- Roshan A. v. Union of India & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KHC:39136-DB)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Aditya Sondhi and Advocate Mohammed Tahir.
Respondents: ASGI S.V. Raju, DSGI Shanthi Bhushan H., SPP-II Vijay Kumar Majage, Advocates P. Prasanna Kumar, J.P. Shivappa Gowda, and Pavan Sagar.
