If I am looking at my religious history, is it an offence, asks techie Anees Ansari’s lawyer

[related-post]

“If I am looking at my religious history, is it an offence?” defence lawyer Sharif Shaikh argued on Tuesday.

Ansari was accused of supporting the terrorist outfit IS as he posted and shared its videos on the social networking website with his friends. “Not even a single clip of me sharing ISIS clips is in chargesheet. If I am affiliated with a certain religious Islamic groupsand if I ‘like’ some of the activities of Islamic groups and I received, liked and posted it, am I going to be accused of that offence?” Sharif argued.

The lawyer also cited Section 66 (a) of the Indian Penal Code, which was struck down by the Supreme Court as it invaded the right to free speech on the Internet, to support Ansari’s activities on the networking website.

An incriminating conversation between a certain Usayrim Logan and Omar Elhajj (a wanted accused) spanning nearly two hours on October 13, 2014, has been included in the 728-page chargesheet claiming that Ansari used the alias Usayrim Logan. The techie, however, claimed that he has been falsely implicated in the case and that he was made to sign on the printout of the facebook pages “under threats issued by the investigating agency”.

The agency has in all brought four charges against Ansari — creating a fake identity on Facebook by misusing computers owned by his employers, conversing with a friend and wanted accused Omar Elhajj on Facebook about supporting ISIS’s terrorist activities, conspiring with Elhajj to attempt a lone wolf attack on the American school and sending offensive messages to his Facebook friends via WhatsApp.

“If I am thinking to commit the murder of so and so, if I am merely thinking, would  it be an offence. If I purchase a revolver to commit the offence and unless and until I go and fire the person Section 302 (murder) IPC is not applicable. In this case there has been no murder,” the defence lawyer argued.

Moreover, if Ansari was planning to attack a school in Mumbai, would he post that on a social networking site, especially when he know that it can be traced and tracked by the ATS, Sharif argued.

The defence lawyer also told the court that he had spoken to the investigating officer about the case and that the matter is such that “an understanding” could be given to the accused. “He can be told that he should not behave in such a manner. He is an extraordinary student and what is the point of ruining his life by putting him behind bars,” Sharif submitted.

Concluding his arguments, the defence lawyer said that if sharing videos of the ISIS was an offence, it should have been banned by the country. “In other cases sharing of a WhatsApp message was objected by a court, it is not so in this case. If it is not banned by the state, am I not entitled to see the videos?” the lawyer said.

The ATS claimed that Ansari had posted incriminating posts, which included an image of details on how to prepare a Thermite bomb. Sharif, however, argued that being an advocate, he has downloaded  articles on ‘how to make a bomb’ and ‘the components of an RDX bomb’. “Is that also an offence?” he added. Opposing Ansari’s bail, the special public prosecutor M Dalvi argued that most offences were apprehended after its commission. However, the particular case was intercepted by the agency “by reliable sources who was noticing Ansari’s activities”, at a timely hour which otherwise would have been “disastrous”.  The prosecutor argued that the real threat came from persons like Ansari who are educated and qualified and is using his intelligence for accessing IS propaganda websites and promoting them and instigating others to follow it.

“He is conspiring a bombing attack with a man on facebook whose whereabouts are still unknown, there is every possibility of him having links with several other people and groups he is part of with whom he is conspiring to commit the particular act,” the prosecutor argued. Moreover, he claimed that if Ansari was released on bail their investigation would be severely hampered and he may threaten the witnesses. “If released on bail, he would have a freehand and can pursue the task,” the prosecutor said.

meghna.yelluru@expressindia.com