Bombay HC grants bail to two persons booked under UAPA over alleged links to Dawood Ibrahim
Court observes that a person’s association with the fugitive gangster or his gang will not attract provisions of the stringent law as Dawood has been declared a ‘terrorist’ in his individual capacity under the Act
Dawood Ibrahim.
| Photo Credit: File Photo
While granting bail to two persons booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Bombay High Court observed that a person’s association with fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim or his gang will not attract provisions of the stringent law as he has been declared a “terrorist” in his individual capacity under the Act.
A Division Bench of Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, in an order dated July 11, the details of which were made available on July 19, granted bail to Parvez Zubair Vaid and Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala, who were arrested in a drug seizure case by the Maharashtra Anti Terrorism Squad in August 2022.
They were booked for their alleged links with Dawood’s crime syndicate under provisions of the UAPA, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and Indian Penal Code.
The Bench noted that the Union government had issued a notification on September 4, 2019 declaring “Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar as a ‘terrorist’ under the UAPA”.
The Bench said the UAPA has separate provisions for activities of individuals and organisations, and the evidence presented in Mr. Vaid’s case would not be sufficient to charge him under Section 20 of the Act, which prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation.
“In our view, prima facie, the offence of Section 20 of the UAPA would not be attracted as Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar has been declared as a terrorist in individual capacity. 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 said.
Mr. Vaid had approached the High Court for bail through his counsels, senior advocate Mihir Desai and advocates Samsher Garud, Vighnesh Iyer and Dhwani Parekh, who argued that the chargesheet does not contain an iota of material to establish the accusations levelled against the accused, particularly under the provisions of UAPA and the NDPS Act. The material contained in the chargesheet does not even remotely connect the appellants with the alleged offences, the counsels argued.
The police acknowledged that there was no material in the chargesheet to justify invocation of Sections 17 (punishment for raising funds for terrorist act) and 18 (punishment for conspiracy), but defended the invocation of Section 20 of the UAPA.
Additional public prosecutor S.V. Gavand, for Maharashtra government, said some witnesses testified that Mr. Vaid was a member of the D-Company and that he made a transaction of ₹25,000 to a person closely associated with Dawood.
The prosecution also stated that Anis Ibrahim, a close confidant of Dawood, financed several illegal activities in India and during a search at Mr. Vaid’s house in August 2022, the police had seized two cell phones from his possession.
The Bench noted that the prosecution could not substantiate with facts that Mr. Bhiwandiwala was a member of Dawood’s crime syndicate. It added that the quantity of drugs recovered from him, 600 grams of ganja, was very small and neither mandates incarceration nor bars him from being released on bail.
“Mere sharing of pictures of narcotics or prohibited substances definitely does not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act,” the Bench said.
The court also observed that the public prosecutor in the case had made statements based on instructions from the ATS officer.
Advocates Rishi Bhuta, Vivek Pandey, Ashish Dubey, Ujjwal Gandhi, and Ankita Bamboli appeared for Mr. Bhiwandiwala.
The Bench granted bail to Mr. Vaid and Mr. Bhiwandiwala on furnishing a surety of ₹50,000 each.
Read Comments
- Copy link
- Telegram
READ LATER
Remove
SEE ALL
PRINT
Related Topics
Mumbai
/
crime
/
police
/
investigation
/
crime, law and justice
/
law enforcement
/
judiciary (system of justice)