‘Concerns national security’: Gauhati High Court denies bail to man who ‘harboured’ Bangladeshi terrorist

Justice Michael Zothankhuma denied bail to one Sayeed Ahmed, who sought the reprieve saying he is merely a shopkeeper.

‘Accused harboured member from jihadi out ABT’

• The accused was arrested in 2022 in relation to a case lodged in Police Station Jogighopa, district Bongaigaon in Assam.
• The FIR was registered for offences under Sections 121 (waging war), 121(A) (conspiracy to commit offences against state), 120(B)(criminal conspiracy) and 124(A) (sedition) of the IPC and relevant provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
• The accused has been alleged to harbour a Bangladeshi national from a jihadi outfit – Ansarullah Bangla Team (ABT) based in Bangladesh.
• The outfit’s member had illegally entered the country and was actively operating in the Barpeta and Bongaigaon districts of Assam.
• Apart from having an affiliation to Al Qaeda, ABT’s activities have been stated to include training of indoctrinated youths and waging a Jihad relating to terrorist activities in the districts of Bongaigaon and other parts of India
• Since his arrest, three separate bail pleas filed by the accused were rejected by the Gauhati High Court on the grounds that 10 out of 25 witnesses have been examined and accused has been alleged to be a member of a jihadi outfit based in Bangladesh.

The accused moved the special NIA court for bail subsequently but was denied bail on January 20.

No bad antecedents: Accused

Advocate M Khan, appearing on behalf of the accused, contended that the accused is a shopkeeper, aged about 28 years and has no bad antecedents in his life.

It was further argued that the accused was not named in the FIR as an accused and that 10 of the 25 prosecution witnesses had been examined by the trial court.

The counsel further argued that the trial was not going to be completed in the near future, and the accused had been in judicial custody for more than four years.

‘Jihadi activities’

The prosecution argued that no new grounds were raised for seeking bail and that the rest of the witnesses would also be examined by the trial court shortly as the case presented a serious issue and hence the bail should not be allowed.

The man was stated to have harboured a Bangladeshi national who is a member of ABT, having affiliation to Al- Qaeda.

“The activity of ABT was for training of indoctrinated youths and for waging a Jihad relating to terrorist activities in the districts of Bongaigaon and other parts of India,” the state prosecutor submitted.

Najeeb, Gulfisha case laws considered

While rejecting the bail plea, the court considered the rulings in Union of India v. K. Najeeb, Javed Gulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, besides Gulfisha Fatima vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).

The rulings considered the prolonged trial period, redemption and the distinction in roles attributed to different accused persons in terror cases.

While the allegation of harbouring a person involved in a terrorist activity would stand on a less serious footing than being involved in terrorist activity, the court observed that no new ground was put forth by the accused in the present case to seek bail.

“Further, 12 out of the 25 Prosecution Witnesses have been examined by the learned Trial Court,” it added