Mumbai Special Court Rejects Bail for Alleged PFI Member in UAPA Case
A special court in Mumbai has denied bail to Mohd Iqbal Ibrahim Khan, an alleged member of the banned outfit Popular Front of India (PFI), who is facing charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The decision was delivered on Tuesday by Special Trial Court Judge Chakor Baviskar, who emphasized the serious nature of the accusations under the anti-terror legislation.
Background of the Case and Arrest Details
Khan has been incarcerated since his arrest on September 22, 2022, in a case handled by the Anti-Terrorist Squad (ATS). The court's order highlighted that if the definition of a 'terrorist act' under Section 15 of the UAPA is applied with serious consideration, the ingredients are prima facie attracted against the accused. This legal assessment formed a key basis for the bail rejection.
Arguments Presented by Defence and Prosecution
During the bail hearing, defence counsel R Sathyararayanan argued that Khan's role is minimal, with over 200 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined, and he has no prior criminal record. The counsel contended that merely receiving or forwarding messages when PFI was not banned does not constitute an offence under UAPA. However, Special Public Prosecutor Sunil Gonsalves opposed bail, stating that Khan has been an active PFI member involved in activities aimed at overthrowing the democratic government of India and establishing an Islamic State under Sharia law. Gonsalves warned that if released, Khan might re-engage in unlawful activities to challenge the government.
Evidence and Court's Rationale for Bail Denial
The court noted that a document titled 'MH Expansion Circular (Proposal)', related to PFI's expansion in Maharashtra, was allegedly found on Khan's phone. This document outlined a four-phase plan to convert India by 2047. In its order, the court stated, "If all the huge material collected during the investigation and filed along with the charge sheet is taken into consideration in its totality, certainly, the PFI through its members like the accused, has actually waged war, at least attempted to wage war or has been attempting and abetting waging of war against Govt of India." The charge in the case has not been framed yet, but the court deemed the evidence substantial enough to deny bail, citing the risk to national security and the ongoing nature of the trial.
