‘Offences were grave, serious in nature’: Delhi HC rejects ISIS convict’s plea

New Delhi: The Delhi high court has rejected ISIS operative Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed’s plea seeking concurrent running of jail terms that was awarded to him by Mumbai and Delhi courts under the stringent anti-terror law for trying to radicalise Muslim youths to join the globally banned terrorist organisation and plotting a terror strike during the Ardh Kumbh Mela at Haridwar in 2016, officials aware of the matter said.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma of the high court observed that though the maximum sentence for the offences for which Sayyed was convicted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was life imprisonment, the two above-mentioned courts had extended him the benefit of pleading guilty by taking a “lenient view” and not sentencing him for life.

The court held that the offences committed by Sayyed were grave and serious, which could impact the society and security of the nation.

A National Investigation Agency (NIA) court in Mumbai had convicted Sayyed under section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 18 (conspiracy), 20 (being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation), 38 (membership of a terrorist organisation) and 39 (support given to a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA and awarded him a sentence of eight years in January 2022.

Also Read | ‘Frequent visitors to India': ATS on Sri Lankan ISIS ‘terrorists’ arrested from Ahmedabad

The Delhi court in the same year in May convicted him for offences under section 120B, 17 (raising funds for terrorist acts), 18 (conspiracy) and 20 (being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation) of the UAPA and awarded him a jail term of seven years.

“This [high] court is of the considered opinion that both the learned trial courts have already extended the benefit of pleading guilty to the present petitioner by not awarding maximum sentence i.e. life imprisonment, which could have been awarded to him under the provisions he has been convicted,” justice Sharma said in the verdict pronounced on Friday.

The bench added, “In this case, the petitioner had himself pleaded guilty to charges framed under UAPA, for his acts of planning to carry out terrorist attacks in Haridwar during Kumbh Mela and plotting to kill a leader of Hindu Mahasabha, primarily with an aim to harm and disrupt communal harmony in the country, and since lenient view has already been taken by the Trial Courts at the stage of sentencing, no further leniency can be granted to the petitioner by allowing concurrent running of sentences awarded to him by the Trial Courts in Greater Bombay and Delhi.”

Taking note of the offences for which Sayyed was convicted, justice Sharma opined that the same could not be termed to be a part of a “same transaction”.

The judge reasoned that the facts of the two cases and the acts committed by him were different. “Thus, merely because the petitioner has been convicted under similar provisions of IPC [Indian Penal Code] and UAPA in both the cases, the same cannot entitle him to seek concurrent running of the sentence, as the facts of both the cases do not form part of a same transaction,” the court noted.

Also Read | Court rejects bail plea of Pune ISIS module case accused

Sayyed had sought concurrent running of sentences on the ground that the factum of his conviction and sentencing by the Mumbai court was not brought to the attention of the Delhi court, because of which the latter could not exercise its discretion for determining the manner of execution of sentences.

In his petition before the high court, Sayyed, represented by advocate Siddharth Sunil, asserted that his client being a young, poor and illiterate man had voluntarily pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him by both the courts out of a genuine desire to reform himself.

Opposing the petition, the NIA, represented through special public prosecutor Akshai Malik, asserted that city courts had convicted and awarded sentences to Sayyed distinctively for offences under UAPA, affecting the sovereignty and security of the country.

In its 23-page order, justice Sharma, underlining the impact of terrorism on society, held that the effect of such activities is profound and far-reaching as these crimes not only have the capacity to sow fear and insecurity among communities but also disrupt social harmony.

“There is no gainsaying that terrorism threatens not only the national security of the country but also the very fabric of society by targeting innocent civilians and institutions indiscriminately, with an aim to instil fear among the common and innocent citizens of a country. The impact of such terrorist activities on society is profound and far-reaching, as these crimes have the capacity to sow fear and insecurity among communities, as well as disrupt social harmony. They also result in loss of innocent lives, destruction of property, and destabilisation of regions. These impacts are often long-lasting,” the court noted.