Mere Association With Dawood Ibrahim Will Not Amount To Terror Gang Membership Under UAPA: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court clarified that mere association with Dawood Ibrahim does not automatically constitute membership in a terrorist gang under Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This judgment emphasizes the necessity of specific evidence to establish such membership.
🧾 Case Overview: Parvez Zubair Vaid & Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala
The appellants were charged under various sections of the UAPA, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and the Indian Penal Code. Key allegations included:
Parvez Vaid was accused of transferring ₹25,000 to an individual associated with Dawood Ibrahim's syndicate.
Faiz Bhiwandiwala was found in possession of 600 grams of ganja.
The prosecution's evidence included Section 164 CrPC statements identifying Vaid as a member of the D-gang. However, the court noted that these statements alone were insufficient to invoke Section 20 of the UAPA. This is because Dawood Ibrahim was declared a terrorist in his individual capacity, not as a member of a terrorist gang or organization. Therefore, association with him does not equate to membership in a terrorist gang under the UAPA.
⚖️ Legal Analysis
Section 20 of the UAPA penalizes membership in a terrorist gang or organization. The court emphasized that for this provision to apply, there must be clear evidence of an individual's active participation in the activities of a terrorist gang or organization. Mere association or nominal links are insufficient. The court's interpretation aligns with the principle that legal provisions must be applied based on the specific facts and evidence of each case.
📌 Key Takeaways
Association vs. Membership: The court distinguished between mere association with a terrorist figure and actual membership in a terrorist gang.
Individual Designation: Dawood Ibrahim's designation as a terrorist in his individual capacity does not extend to his associates under Section 20 of the UAPA.
Evidence Requirement: Active participation and involvement in terrorist activities must be demonstrated to substantiate charges under the UAPA.
🧭 Conclusion
The Bombay High Court's decision underscores the importance of substantive evidence in prosecuting individuals under anti-terrorism laws. It serves as a reminder that legal provisions must be applied judiciously, ensuring that charges are based on concrete involvement rather than mere association.
RELATED Blog
0 comments