While granting bail to Mohammad Raisuddin, who was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in 2016 for alleged links with the Islamic State (ISIS), the Bombay High Court has observed that oath declaring the acceptance of one Abi Bakar Al Baghdadi Al Hussaini Al Quraishi as the 'Caliph’' of the Muslims does not appear to be incriminating.
A division bench of justices Revati Mohite-Dere and VG Bisht granted bail to Raisuddin on June 27. “Even a perusal of the Oath (Baith) allegedly written by the appellant (Raisuddin), at the highest, appears to be a declaration of the acceptance of one Abi Bakar Al Baghdadi Al Hussaini Al Quraishi as the `Caliph’ of the Muslims. Prima-facie (on the face of it), a perusal of the said Oath (Baith) does not appear to be incriminating,” observed the HC in its 37-page order.
The HC was hearing a petition filed by Raisuddin challenging the order of the special National Investigation Agency (NIA) court rejecting his bail on January 31, 2019. He had sought bail on merit, on the ground of parity as well as on the ground of delay in commencement of the trial.
Raisuddin’s counsel Mubin Solkar argued that there is absolute “no cogent, legitimate, admissible evidence” against him to connect him with the alleged offence. The statements of the four witnesses, on which the prosecution is relying, only indicates that Raisuddin and these witnesses would hold discussions over threats to Islam, actions of the ISIS and other issues like beef ban, communal riots, and injustice to Muslims in Palestine, etc.
The third circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is an Oath (Baith) allegedly written and signed by Raisuddin. Solkar argued that the said Oath (Baith) is easily available on the internet and even a perusal of the contents of the Oath (Baith) would show that there is nothing incriminating in the Oath (Baith). However, he said that Raisuddin had neither written nor signed the said Oath (Baith).
Raisuddin has been in custody since his arrest in 2016. Solkar argued that not one witness out of the 550 witnesses has been examined and that it would take a long time for the trial to commence.
The court observed that the prosecution had not produced allegedly incriminating WhatsApp chats that connected Raisuddin with the offences. “It is pertinent to note, that admittedly, no Whats App chats have been produced by the prosecution in their charge sheet, as a result of which, no light is thrown on the nature of discussion/chats/posts allegedly put up by any of the accused,” observed the HC.
The discussions between the witnesses and Raisuddin do not show that same were to instigate an offence or insurgency. The court said: “It is the perception of the witnesses that the said accused had jihadi leanings or were fundamentalists,” said HC adding that the discussions and deliberations do not “indicate that the appellant (Raisuddin) instigated the commission of any offence or insurgency, nor that the appellant advocated violent reactions”.
