The Bombay High Court ruled that mere association with Dawood Ibrahim does not constitute membership in a terrorist gang under the UAPA. The court clarified that the UAPA distinguishes between individual activities and those of a terrorist gang or organization.
Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently ruled that any association with Dawood Ibrahim, who designated as a terrorist under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), does not automatically invoke the provision against membership in a terrorist gang or organization.
A division bench comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande clarified that Ibrahim’s designation as a terrorist is in his “individual capacity,” which is not sufficient to invoke Section 20 of the UAPA merely based on an association with him, thereby not implicating someone as a member of the D-gang or Dawood gang.
Read Also: Supreme Court Permits Withdrawal of Petitions Contesting Constitutionality of UAPA
The Court elaborated that the UAPA contains distinct provisions for the actions of individuals versus those of terrorist gangs or organizations.
They stated,
“Section 20 prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. In the instant case, the material on which reliance is placed is in the form of a Section 164 statement, referring to Parvez Vaid (petitioner) as a Member of D-gang. This, in our view, prima facie, would not attract the offence under section 20, as by the amendment in Schedule IV, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, has been declared as a terrorist in individual capacity, and therefore, any association with him on the pretext that a person belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang will not attract the provisions of Section 20.”
The Court made these observations while addressing petitions filed by Parvez Zubair Vaid and Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala, who faced charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and the Indian Penal Code.
In addition to allegations of being members of a terrorist organization, they were also accused of conspiracy and raising funds for terrorist activities. The NDPS Act charges stemmed from an alleged recovery of 600 grams of ganja from Bhiwandiwala’s premises.
Seeking bail, their counsel argued that there was no evidence linking them to the alleged offenses. The Police admitted that the charge sheet lacked material to justify invoking Section 17 (Punishment for raising funds for a terrorist act) and Section 18 (Punishment for conspiracy, etc.), but defended the application of Section 20 of the UAPA.
Witnesses stated that they recognized Vaid as a member of D-Company, and the prosecution pointed out a Rs. 25,000 transaction made by Parvez to an individual closely associated with Ibrahim.
After reviewing the evidence and noting that the UAPA has distinct provisions for individual and organizational activities, the Court concluded that the statements were insufficient to apply Section 20 against Vaid. Regarding Bhiwandiwala, the Court found no evidence of his association with the D-gang.
Regarding the charges under the NDPS Act, the Court noted that only 600 grams of ganja recovered, which is considered a small quantity and neither commercial nor intermediate. Therefore, the bar under Section 37 of the NDPS Act for releasing Bhiwandiwala on bail not applicable.
The Court also stated,
“Mere sharing of pictures of narcotics or prohibited substances does not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act.”
Read Also: Madras High Court Questions UAPA Application in Conspiracy to Kill Hindu Leaders
With these observations, the Court granted bail to the accused.
Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, along with Advocates Samsher Garud, Vighnesh Iyer, and Dhwani Parekh, represented Parvez Zubair Vaid. Advocates Rishi Bhuta, Vivek Pandey, Ashish Dubey, Ujjwal Gandhi, and Ankita Bamboli represented Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala.
APP SP Gavand appeared for the State.
Read Order: [Parvez Zubair Vaid & Anr v State] .