Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed, convicted by courts in Delhi and Mumbai for recruiting individuals for ISIS and plotting an attack during the Ardh Kumbh Mela, had his plea rejected by the Delhi High Court. The court highlighted the need for a stringent approach to terrorism, reaffirming its commitment to national security. Sayyed’s involvement with ISIS highlighted the persistent threat of terrorism and the necessity for robust legal actions against such activities.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed, a convicted member of the terrorist organization ISIS. The petition sought a directive to have the sentences awarded in his two separate cases run concurrently, rather than consecutively.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in her ruling, noted that Sayyed had been convicted under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) and pleaded guilty to the offense of terrorism.
The High Court emphasized that the Supreme Court has previously held that concurrent sentencing should not be permitted in cases involving the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (NDPS Act) due to the significant impact of such crimes on society.
The High Court‘s decision upholds the principle that sentences for serious offenses, such as those under the UAPA and NDPS Act, should be served consecutively to reflect the gravity of the offenses and their detrimental impact on the community.
Justice Sharma emphasized the need for exceptional severity in handling terror-related cases.
The Court stated,
“In this case, the petitioner admitted to the charges under the UAPA, confessing to plans for terrorist attacks during the Kumbh Mela in Haridwar and plotting the assassination of a Hindu Mahasabha leader with the intention of inciting communal discord in the country. Considering that the Trial Courts had already shown leniency during sentencing, no further reduction can be granted by allowing the concurrent running of sentences imposed by the Trial Courts in Greater Bombay and Delhi,”
Sayyed convicted by trial courts in Mumbai and Delhi for various offenses under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
In the Mumbai case, Sayyed found guilty of promoting ISIS activities, recruiting youths to become suicide bombers, and planning the assassination of Kamlesh Tiwari, a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha. He sentenced to eight years in jail for these crimes.
The Delhi court also convicted Sayyed, sentencing him to seven years in prison. He found guilty of conspiring to carry out an attack during the Ardh Kumbh Mela in Haridwar and raising funds for this planned attack.
Sayyed pleaded guilty in both the Mumbai and Delhi cases.
After reviewing the case, Justice Sharma noted that the trial courts in both Mumbai and Delhi did not impose a life sentence, which is the maximum punishment for the offenses the convict found guilty of. Consequently, if the sentences from both courts were to run concurrently, the convict would only serve eight years in prison.
Read Also: Photos of Laden, ISIS Flags Not Definitive Evidence of Terrorist Organisation: Delhi HC
The court remarked that considering the severity of the crime committed, no harm would come from having the 15-year sentence run concurrently.
The Court concluded,
“Thus, this Court sees no grounds to exercise discretion under Section 427(1) of the CrPC. Therefore, the sentence of imprisonment handed down to the petitioner in the case identified as RC09/2016/NIA/DLI by the Delhi Trial Court will commence only after the completion of the sentence given to the petitioner in the case identified as RC-02/2016/NIA/MUM by the Greater Bombay Trial Court,”
Advocate Siddharth Sunil represented the petitioner, Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) represented by Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik, along with advocates Khawar Saleem and Arun Kumar.
Read Judgement: [Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed v National Investigation Agency].
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
