Synopsis: The Court found that no material was obtained with respect to the petitioner’s participation in any of the Al-Qaeda team’s operations.
After being imprisoned for more than a year, on charges of having terrorist connections, a Maulana was recently granted bail by the Jharkhand High Court on finding that no evidence was submitted with regard to the petitioner’s involvement in any Al-Qaeda activities.
Justice Kailash Prasad Deo allowed the bail plea moved by Maulana, after also noticing that he had no criminal record.
The order of the Court states that no information has been gathered with regard to the petitioner’s involvement in any Al-Qaeda activities, whereas the case of co-accused Nasim Akhtar @ Raju is different as there was evidence against him that he went to various states for training, but no such material has been gathered against the petitioner or any investigating officer has with regard to the money given to this petitioner by any Organization, who was involved in unlawful activities.
In September 2019, Maulana Kalimuddin Muzahiri was arrested on charges of sedition, war against the government, conspiracy and related offences. The provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act have been cited in this respect.
Advocate Amit Kumar Das, appearing for Muzahiri, told the Court that initially, the petitioner was not named in the FIR. The police alleged during the investigation that the accused had met at the petitioner’s home. Subsequently, as Jihadi is the petitioner, the police alleged that he had earned money for performing anti-national activities.
However, no criminal case against the petitioner was discovered. In order to show guilt against the petitioner, no material was obtained during the investigation.
The petitioner’s case is completely different from that of the co-accused in the case, against whom there was evidence that the co-accused had gone to Saudi Arabia for training.
The petitioner had gone to Saudi Arabia three times for Hajj and with the permission of the government. There was no record that the petitioner had ever met with any militant in Saudi Arabia.
The Court also noticed that subsequently, as is evident from the counter affidavit, the police also made the petitioner’s son an accused in this case.
The State opposed the bail plea by Advocate Arup Kumar Dey, arguing that the petitioner had admitted his guilt, claiming that the co-accused would visit his house to negotiate the expansion of the Al-Qaeda network in the case.
However, the Court found out that no evidence was gathered to support these claims.
Therefore, upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs 25,000 and two assurances of the same amount, Maulana Muzahiri was directed to be released on bail.
Among other general orders for ensuring that the petitioner cooperates with the authorities in the course of the investigation, the Court also ruled that only one mobile phone in his name should be used and that his mobile number should be communicated and submitted with the Police Officer in Charge and the Court of Justice.