Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed, convicted for ISIS recruitment and plotting an attack, had his plea rejected by the Delhi High Court. His request for concurrent sentencing of his Delhi and Mumbai cases was dismissed, emphasizing the gravity of his offenses. The court highlighted the need for stringent action against terrorism, supporting national security.
The Supreme Court set to hear a plea challenging new criminal legislation, questioning its constitutionality and potential impacts on fundamental rights. The laws, known as the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya Act, have raised concerns about police powers and violations of citizen rights, leading to a significant judicial review.
The Delhi High Court rejected the parole application of Feroz Ahmed Bhatt, a convicted terrorist associated with Jaish-e-Mohammed, due to security concerns and the gravity of his offense. Despite his desire to meet his parents and get married, the court arranged a video call instead. The court cited the risks associated with his release and a previous case where a co-accused rejoined a terrorist organization after being released on parole.
Today, 24th April,Umar Khalid’s lawyer argued in court that the allegations against him do not amount to a terrorism offense, emphasizing the lack of evidence. The defense also highlighted media scrutiny and called for a fair legal process. Khalid’s bail request is under consideration, with the next hearing scheduled for May 7. The lawyer cited inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and urged the court to assess the evidence critically.
Yesterday, 8th April, The Supreme Court (SC) endorsed the release of 96-year-old terrorist convict Habib Ahmed Khan, emphasizing humanitarian concerns over prolonged incarceration akin to capital punishment. The court urged the Rajasthan government to consider remission from a human rights perspective, questioning the purpose of continued imprisonment given Khan’s deteriorating health and advanced age.
A Kerala court sentenced Riyas to 10 years in prison for promoting ISIS ideology and activities in India, imposing a ₹50,000 fine. The judgment highlighted his radicalization, dissemination of ISIS propaganda through social media, and involvement in criminal conspiracy. It emphasized the need for deterrence and public order maintenance in combating extremism. The case underscores challenges posed by digital radicalization and the importance of a strong legal framework for addressing such threats.
The Supreme Court of India has denied bail to an individual involved in promoting Khalistan, emphasizing the severity with which the judiciary addresses terrorism and separatism. The accused allegedly received illicit financial support to advocate for the separatist ideology, highlighting the ongoing vigilance required to combat such movements within India.