The Rajasthan High Court has denied the bail requests of two individuals who have been in custody for more than nine years on charges of being involved with the Indian Mujahideen, a terrorist group. The court's decision is based on the belief that the evidence presented by the prosecution suggests their involvement in the alleged crimes.

In the judgment, Justice Kuldeep Mathur, who presided over the single-judge bench, pointed out that forming an initial impression under Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA Act, suggesting that the claims against the petitioners/accused individuals were unfounded, was a challenging task. The court clarified that the available evidence, including oral statements, documents, and electronic records such as mobile phone data, chat records, and videos, appeared to establish a preliminary connection between the petitioner and the offenses as alleged under the UAPA.

The bench, presiding in Jodhpur, has observed that the ongoing trial in the competent criminal court is progressing rapidly, with more than half of the prosecution witnesses having already been examined. Furthermore, the trial court is diligently conducting proceedings on a day-to-day basis and making significant efforts to bring the trial to a swift conclusion. As a result, the bench is of the opinion that the trial is likely to be concluded in the near future. The argument presented by the petitioners, who have been in custody for over 9 years, that their prolonged incarceration is unjustified, does not hold merit in the eyes of the court. This is especially true because there is no evidence to suggest that the prosecution is intentionally delaying the trial against the petitioners.

There is speculation that one of the accused, Mohammad Maroof, has been in communication with the leaders of the Indian Mujahideen who are currently residing in Pakistan, specifically, Iqbal Bhatkal and Riyaz Bhatkal.

The state had informed the court that as per an order from a co-ordinate bench of the High Court issued on July 19, 2022, the examination of 68 witnesses out of the total 110 prosecution witnesses had been completed to expedite the trial. While rejecting the bail applications submitted by Mohammad Yasir and Mohammed Maroof under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), the court also noted that the observations made in the order are specific to the bail decision and should not influence the forthcoming findings that the trial court will make.

The accused individuals were arrested in connection with a First Information Report (FIR) filed at Pratapnagar Police Station. The charges against them include offenses falling under the Explosive Substances Act, as well as various sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Indian Penal Code, and related laws. According to the police, both of them were allegedly present at meetings of the Indian Mujahideen in 2013 and conspired to carry out terrorist activities in Rajasthan. Additionally, the petitioners are accused of recruiting others into the banned organization and involving them in anti-national activities organized by the terrorist group.

One of the accused, Mohammad Maroof, argued that he should not be linked to any of the offenses he's been charged with merely based on the chat messages exchanged between him and his co-accused. He also emphasized to the court that other co-accused individuals facing similar allegations have already been granted bail by both the High Court and the Supreme Court in numerous cases.

The prosecution strongly emphasized that, in addition to the mentioned activities, the accused individuals have allegedly provided logistical and financial support to the terrorist organization. The prosecution argued that further investigation and the evidence that may emerge during the trial could reveal the full extent of the role played by both accused. Furthermore, the prosecution vehemently opposed the bail applications on the grounds that the trial could be expedited given the current pace of witness examination, and therefore, there is no need to release the accused on bail.

Case: Mohammad Ammar Yasir v. State of Rajasthan & Mohammad Maroof v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 11044/2023.