Karnataka High Court
Mohammad Arif @ Arif vs National Investigation Agency (Nia) on 9 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB
CRL.A No.1073/2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1073/2025 (21(NIA))
BETWEEN:
MOHAMMAD ARIF @ ARIF
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
S/O. MOHD. MUBARAK HUSSAIN
NO.4/2381, STREET NO.1
IQRA COLONY, ALIGARH
UTTAR PRADESH - 202 001
PRESENTLY LODGED IN CENTRAL JAIL
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
ALSO R/AT NO.2, 5TH CROSS
MANJUNATHA LAYOUT, RAJVISHNU RASTE
NAGAWARA, BANGALORE ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI MEHMOOD PRACHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI MOHAMMAD FAIZAN, ADVOCATE)
Digitally AND:
signed by K S
RENUKAMBA NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA)
Location: THROUGH SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
High Court of NIA BRANCH OFFICE
Karnataka
3RD FLOOR, BSNL TELEPHONE EXCHANGE
HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRA NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 008 ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI SACHIN C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 21(1) OF
NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY ACT, 2008 PRAYING TO ALLOW
THE PRESENT APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON
CHARGE DATED 10.03.2025 PASSED BY THE XLIX ADDITIONAL CITY
CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT FOR TRIAL OF NIA
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB
CRL.A No.1073/2025
HC-KAR
CASES (CCH-50), BENGALURU IN SPL.C.NO.2274/2023 ARISING OUT
OF FIR NO.RC-04/2023/NIA/DLI DTD 03.04.2023, POLICE STATION,
NIA, NEW DELHI AND DISCHARGE THE APPELLANT IN THE AFORESAID
CASE.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 12.11.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE P SREE SUDHA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL) Challenging the order to frame charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A, 153A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short 'UAP Act'), accused No.1/appellant in Special Case No.2274/2023 on the file of XLIX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge (Special Court for trial of NIA Cases), CCH-50, Bengaluru has preferred this appeal.
2. Special Case No.2274/2023 is registered against appellant and accused No.2 on the basis of the charge sheet filed against them in RC-04/2023/NIA/DLI ('RC-04/2023' for short) for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A, 153A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 20, 38, 39 and 40 of UAP Act. At the stage of hearing under Section 227 of -3- NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR Cr.P.C. regarding framing of charge, appellant urged for discharge raising various grounds.
3. The trial Court on hearing the parties, by the impugned order dated 10.03.2025 accepted the appellant's contention only with regard to Section 40 of UAP Act and discharged him for the said offence. However, the trial Court held that there are grounds to frame charges against him for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A, 153A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 20, 38, 39 of UAP Act. Thus trial Court partly allowed the application. Said order is assailed in this appeal.
4. Heard Sri Mehmood Pracha, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Mohammad Faizan, learned Counsel on record for the appellant and Sri Sachin.C., learned Counsel along with Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor for the respondent/NIA.
5. Brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) Appellant and accused No.2 were arrested by NIA Police during the course of investigation in RC-40/2022/NIA/DLI ('RC-40/2022' for short) and they were -4- NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR interrogated. On interrogation, appellant revealed that said accused were affiliated to Indian and Foreign based online handlers of banned organizations Al-Qaeda and Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). They were engaged to identify gullible Muslim Youth to radicalize and recruit them by propagating the ideologies of TTP. It was also revealed that appellant and accused No.2 were part of telegram group by name 'Rising Islam' and acted in furtherance of motive to move to Afghanistan to wage war against Asiatic Power in alliance with Government of India. For the said purpose, they raised funds and transferred the same to foreign based handlers to achieve the object of those proscribed organization.
(ii) On revelation of such acts on the part of appellant and accused No.2, Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India issued an order dated 03.04.2023 under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 ('NIA Act' for short) and directed the respondent/NIA to take up further investigation in the matter. On such order, separate case in RC-
04/2023 was registered against appellant and accused No.2. In view of such registration of separate case, closure report in RC- 40/2022 was filed against them and investigation in RC-04/2023 -5- NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR was taken up. Thereafter on filing application before the Special Court, appellant and accused No.2 were taken into police custody in RC-04/2023.
(iii) Interrogation of appellant revealed that he was radicalized through online contents for getting recruited to TTP- a proscribed terrorist organization and associate of another proscribed terrorist organization-Al-Qaeda. TTP was listed as associate organization of Al-Qaeda for participating in finance, planning and facilitating preparations of activities on behalf of Al-Qaeda. TTP was involved in supplying, selling and transferring arms to support Al-Qaeda and recruit the candidates for Al- Qaeda. Investigation revealed that appellant contacted members of TTP, sent money to the said members in Pakistan, planned to shift their family members to further jihad activities in India and for that purpose appellant booked tickets for himself and his family members to move to Afghanistan to join TTP. He had also booked dummy return tickets.
(iv) On the basis of interrogation of appellant and his voluntary statement, particulars of his social media accounts were discovered. The contents of the same were downloaded, which showed that he had posted several tweets appreciating the -6- NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR attack on Indian Military and Indian Army Personnel and he was found sharing material in support of banned terrorist organization. It also revealed his plan to migrate to Afghanistan. The materials collected further showed that with an intention to create disharmony between groups of different religion, he was sending messages. He had received instructions from one Hanzala to move to Afghanistan to join TTP. Appellant and accused No.2 were in close contact with each other and had conversed with regard to transfer of money through accused No.2 to their associates and transferred the same to Pakistan for the purpose of utilization of the same for illegal/terrorist activities. Appellant in his digital post made statement that there be Taliban Rule over throwing Indian Government and bring Sharia Law in India to indulge in jihaadi against India. He was provoking gullible persons in that direction. Thus he has committed the offences alleged against him.
6. Appellant argued for his discharge on the following grounds:
(i) That no material was produced to show that TTP is proscribed organization and he was a member of the same, -7- NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR therefore the charges under the provision of UAP Act cannot be framed;
(ii) Earlier he was made accused in RC-40/2022, but no charges were framed in that case against him for the aforesaid offences and he was released. Therefore for the same offence he cannot be charged in the subsequent case;
(iii) There was no discovery pursuant to the alleged voluntary statement of appellant. Hence the same is inadmissible;
(iv) There was no evidence to show that appellant had made any payments to any banned organization or terrorist group. Though it was alleged that appellant had received instructions from one Shamsullah or Hanzala, those persons were not made accused in the case and in that regard no investigation was conducted. Thus there was no material to frame charges against appellant.
(v) Government had not passed any take down order against alleged provocative messages of appellant. That itself shows that there was no material in proof of such posts creating disharmony; &
(vi) Traveling to another Country itself is not an offence. -8-
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR
7. As already noted, respondent denied all such grounds and contended that there is sufficient material to frame charges against the appellant. The trial Court has accepted the contention of the appellant only with regard to the offence punishable under Section 40 of UAP Act and with regard to other offences, the trial Court has held that there is material to frame charges.
8. Sri Mehmood Pracha, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Mohammed Faizan, learned Counsel on record for the appellant reiterating the grounds of appeal and the one urged before the trial Court contended that the order of the trial Court is contrary to Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C. and the material on records. Hence seeks discharge of the accused on allowing the appeal.
9. Sri Sachin C, learned Counsel along with Sri P.Prasanna Kumar, learned Special Public Prosecutor reiterating the contentions taken in the statement of objections, justifies the impugned order. Though initially the respondent questioned maintainability of the appeal, learned Special Public Prosecutor subsequently did not press the said contention.
10. Both Counsel submitted synopsis of their arguments and copies of the charge sheet records. In the light of the rival -9- NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR contentions of the parties and material on record, this Court has to examine "Whether in passing the impugned order for framing of charges against appellant, the trial Court has acted contrary to Section 227 of Cr.P.C.?"
11. Section 227 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:
"227. Discharge.− If, upon consideration of the record of the case and the documents submitted therewith, and after hearing the submissions of the accused and the prosecution in this behalf, the Judge considers that there is not sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused, he shall discharge the accused and record his reasons for so doing."
12. Reading of the above provision shows that in deciding whether there is sufficient material to proceed to frame charge against the accused or he shall be discharged, the Court is required to consider the record of the case and documents submitted. In this regard, the trial Court has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(i) Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal1
(ii) Sajjan Kumar v. CBI2
(iii) State of Rajasthan v. Ashok Kumar Kashyap3 1 AIR 1979 SC 366 2 (2010) 9 SCC 368 3 (2021) 11 SCC 191
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR
13. On perusal of the above judgments, following principles emerge:
(i) While considering the plea for discharge under Section 227 of Cr.P.C, the Court has to examine the records only to find out whether prima-facie case exists.
(ii) At that stage, the Court shall not conduct full fledged trial to find out whether a case for conviction or acquittal is emerging.
14. In this case the material on record has to be examined in the light of such principles to find out whether there was sufficient material to frame charges for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 38 and 39 of UAP Act and Sections 120B, 121A, 153A read with Section 34 of IPC. Reg. TTP being a proscribed organization or not and appellant being its member:
15. Section 20 of UAP Act deals with punishment for being member of terrorist gang or organization involved in terrorist act. The first contention of the appellant was that no material was placed to show that TTP was proscribed organization.
16. The contention of the respondent is that Entry 33 in the First Schedule to UAP Act includes 'Organizations listed in the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR Schedule to the U.N. Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) Order, 2007' to be construed as banned organization. Government of India in terms of United Nations (Security Council) Act, 1947 being signatory to Charter of the United Nations has obligation to follow Entry 33 in the said Act and accordingly promulgated U.N. Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism (Implementation of Security Council Resolutions) (Amendment) Order, 2021. As per the Schedule appended to the said order, TTP is listed as proscribed terrorist organization. Thus it falls under Entry 33 of the First Schedule of UAP Act.
17. To substantiate the said contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted copy of Gazette Notification dated 08.06.2021 issued by Government of India. The said record shows that TTP is enlisted as proscribed organization under UAP Act. It was contended that the said Gazette Notification was not made part of the charge sheet records. As rightly pointed out by learned Special Public Prosecutor, as per Section 57(11) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short 'Evidence Act'), the Court can take judicial notice of the said notification as that notifies the commencement of hostilities between Government of India and
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR TTP and that carries presumptive value as enumerated under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act. Accordingly, the trial Court has taken notice of the same.
18. Section 2(l) of the UAP Act states that any association, other than terrorist organization, whether systematic or otherwise, which is concerned with, or involved in, terrorist act constitutes 'terrorist gang'.
19. Section 20 of UAP Act deals with punishment not only for being member of the terrorist organization, but also of terrorist gang. If there was material to show that appellant and accused No.2 were members of terrorist gang then also Section 20 of UAP Act is attracted. Whether there was material against appellant for that will be discussed in the later part of this judgment.
20. So far as the contention of the appellant that TTP was not a proscribed organization and therefore he should have been discharged of the said offence was rightly rejected by the trial Court.
Reg. Closure of RC-40/2022:
21. Further contention was that in RC-40/2022, appellant was arrested on the same allegations, but case against him was
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR closed, therefore the trial Court should not have decided to frame charges for such offences in this case. Annexure-G is the closure report in RC-40/2022 filed by the appellant himself. Reading of the said document shows that NIA during investigation had arrested Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md.Hussain and Abdul Alim Mondal @ Md.Juba on the ground that they have entered into conspiracy with other associates creating telegram groups for terrorist training and jihad activities of Al-Qaeda. In that case, the appellant and accused No.2 were shown as accused Nos.3 and 4. Respondent/NIA found that the appellant and accused No.2 were not associates of the prime accused named in RC-40/2022, but they are running separate module with foreign based online handlers of TTP and Al-Qaeda and to investigate the module of the appellant and accused No.2, separate case in RC-04/2023 was registered. Therefore the case against them in RC-40/2022 was closed. It was also stated in the said document that separate case registered against the appellant and accused No.2 is pending before the Court. The respondent also requested the trial Court to use the evidence collected against the appellant and accused No.2 in RC-40/2022 as evidence in RC-04/2023. Accepting that, the Court closed the case in RC-40/2022 against the appellant and
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR accused No.2 permitting NIA to proceed against them in RC- 04/2023 i.e. the present case. That does not amount to discharge or acquittal of the appellant and accused No.2 in RC- 40/2022.
22. Next contention of appellant is that accused Nos.1 and 2 in RC-40/2022 were not convicted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of UAP Act, though it was alleged that they were members of Al-Qaeda or TTP. For that, respondent contended that though accused Nos.1 and 2 in RC-40/2022 were charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 20 of UAP Act, the charge against them for the said offence i.e. for they being members of Al-Qaeda was not framed. Therefore the question of convicting them for the said offence does not arise. To substantiate his contention, learned Special Public Prosecutor submitted copies of the order dated 18.12.2023 in Special Case No.125/2023 which arose out RC-40/2022. Reading of the said order shows that accused Nos.1 and 2 of the said case pleaded guilty for the charges for the offences punishable under Sections 121A, 153A, 153B of IPC and Sections 13, 18, 38 and 39 of UAP Act. Accordingly they were convicted for the said offences. Therefore there is no merit in the contention that accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said case were acquitted of the charge under Section
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR 20 of UAP Act or they were not convicted for the said charge, hence no charge can be framed against the appellant and accused No.2 in the present case also.
Reg. Admissibility of confession of appellant and prima-facie case:
23. It was contended that appellant is implicated in the case only based on his alleged voluntary statement, but there was no discovery of any fact pursuant to the said statement, hence such voluntary statement becomes inadmissible even to frame charge. It was also contended that there was no prima-facie material to proceed to frame charge. As already noted, at the stage of consideration of the matter under Sections 227 and 228 of Cr.P.C., the Court is required to consider the records and documents submitted in the charge sheet and the contentions of the parties with reference to the same. There cannot be hair split analysis of the materials as if to consider the matter for final hearing on full fledged trial. In the light of such legal position, this Court has to examine whether there was material before the trial Court to hold that there was prima-facie material to frame charges for the offences punishable under Sections 20, 38, 39 of UAP Act and Sections 120B, 121A, 153A read with Section 34 of IPC.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR
24. As already noted, Section 20 of UAP Act is attracted where the accused is member of terrorist gang or terrorist organization. Section 38 of UAP Act reads as follows:
"38. Offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation.--(1) A person, who associates himself, or professes to be associated, with a terrorist organisation with intention to further its activities, commits an offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation:
Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where the person charged is able to prove--
(a) that the organisation was not declared as a terrorist organisation at the time when he became a member or began to profess to be a member; and
(b) that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation at any time during its inclusion in the First Schedule as a terrorist organisation. (2) A person, who commits the offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1), shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or with fine, or with both.
25. In view of the above provision, respondent was required to place the material to show that accused associated himself, or professed to be associated with TTP with intention to further the activities of the same. Once that is done, burden is on
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR the accused to show that the organization was not declared as terrorist organization or he was not part of such organization.
26. Section 39 of UAP Act reads as follows:
"39. Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation.--(1) A person commits the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation,--
(a) who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation,--
(i) invites support for the terrorist organization;
and
(ii) the support is not or is not restricted to provide money or other property within the meaning of section 40; or
(b) who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is--
(i) to support the terrorist organization; or
(ii) to further the activity of the terrorist organization;
or
(iii) to be addressed by a person who associates or professes to be associated with the terrorist organisation; or
(c) who, with intention to further the activity of a terrorist organisation, addresses a meeting for the purpose of encouraging support for the terrorist organisation or to further its activity. (2) A person, who commits the offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation under sub-section
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or with fine, or with both.
27. To seek framing of charges, the respondent was required to place the material to show that the appellant to further the activities of TTP or Al-Qaeda invited the support for such organization. Such support need not be restricted to provide funds to further the activities of such organization. His assistance in arranging or managing meeting of individuals to further the activities of said organization for the purpose of encouraging support for the terrorist organization also amounts to offence under Section 39 of UAP Act.
28. There is no dispute that appellant and accused No.2 were arrested during the course of investigation in RC-40/2022 and they were interrogated. According to the respondent, based on the voluntary statement of appellant, his social media account was discovered, which in turn revealed his attempt to radicalize the Muslim youth and that he indulged in anti national activities like tweets rejoicing the attack on Indian Military or Indian Army Personnel etc. The charge sheet records show that on scrutiny of digital device seized, appellant was found using mobile phone No.99710 91277 to communicate with accused No.2 and others
- 19 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR persons, witnesses and online handlers. Data extracted from the seized gadgets of appellant were sent to CFSL, New Delhi for analysis.
29. Charge sheet records revealed that appellant was found tweeting "Constitution ko bilkul badla Jaa Sakta hai". He was found sharing video on terrorist organization Al-Shabaab. He had tweeted by attaching a photo of attack on army convoy in Pulwama District of Jammu & Kashmir as "Buldozer aaye to aisa bana dena, phir nahi ayega", thereby he had rejoiced the terrorist attack on paramilitary personnel who were martyred. He was also found tweeting "Once a Muslim land, always a Muslim land, 70% of Bharat is illegal encroachment on behalf of Aurangzeb (RA)". As per charge sheet records, his tweet further showed his plan to migrate to Afghanistan along with his entire family. For that purpose, he was in contact with some foreign handlers.
30. Charge sheet copies produced by the appellant himself in the present case show his twitter post as "Any Muslim leader who calls towards man made laws (Democracy) is not a Muslim. Also his promise about health care or education has zero value because Allah says in Quran that all the good deeds of disbelievers will be reduced to zero" . He also posted "Count
- 20 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR properly and keep a good record. Islamic army in ghazwa-e-hind won't need to raid every home, just few temples."
31. Charge sheet records submitted before this Court show that appellant had sent several messages against democratic set up, propagating extreme religious ideologies and bringing Muslim Rule in India. They also showed that with an intention to join banned organization, he intended to travel to Afghanistan and in that regard he had received some instructions from foreign handlers to reach Mashhad city in Iran and thereafter move to Afghanistan to join TTP. He had booked tickets and hotel through travel agencies etc., he was involved in conversation with one Hanzala regarding working on behalf of proscribed organization/TTP, appellant and accused No.2 were in contact with each other and further in their support to the proscribed organization, he had given call for arrangement of Taliban rule trampling democracy.
32. The statement of witness Arif Khan S/o. Anis Khan shows that he was person known to accused No.2 and accused No.2 was prompting and telling him that he will go to Afghanistan through Iran and join Taliban and TTP to do jihad against non-
- 21 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR believers. Accused No.2 was friend of appellant and he had transferred some money to him.
33. The statement of witness Saquib Adbula Khan S/o. Abdula Khan shows that he was friend of appellant and accused No.2. Accused No.2 was scolding him for having friendship with Hindus and telling about his intention to leave India and go to Afghanistan to join Taliban and TTP. He also states that appellant and accused No.2 used to motivate him to join and go to Afghanistan to do jihad along with that they were telling that India is not safe place for Muslims and they have motivated Shahid medical store worker to join him to go to Afghanistan to join TTP and Taliban.
34. The statement of witness Mohammed Zaid S/o. Fakrudeen shows that appellant used to visit mosque and was part of banned organization and initially started anti-India comments and anti-sovereign posts. His statement further shows that appellant was against democratically elected government, wanted India to be ruled under Islamic Law and supported violent jihad. He expressed anti-Hindu sentiments and was in favour of jihad against non-believers and provoked on religious lines.
- 22 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR
35. The statement of witness Toqeer Khan S/o. Tanveer Khan, colleague of appellant working in Exotel in Gurgaon Sector- 49 shows that the appellant tried to radicalize him insisting to avoid democratic set up and he was against Indian army. His statement further shows that he was against Muslims having friendship with Hindus. He wanted India to be ruled by Islamic Law and he was in favour of indulging in Jihaad in Afghanistan. The statement of the said witness further shows that the appellant was telling that he will go to Afghanistan with family to join Taliban and TTP.
36. The above material in the charge sheet goes to show that there was ground to proceed to frame charges against the appellant. Therefore the trial Court was justified in holding accordingly.
37. So far as the contention that the trial Court has relied on the confessional statement of the appellant which was inadmissible, the material on record at this stage, prima-facie shows that based on voluntary statement of the appellant, his twitter account was discovered and from said account incriminating posts made by him were discovered. Therefore, there is no merit in the contention that by holding that there is
- 23 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR material to proceed against the appellant to frame charge the trial Court has relied on inadmissible evidence. Reg. Take down order against incriminating posts:
38. So far as the contention that the Government had not passed any take down orders against the tweets of the appellant, the tweets and the posts prima-facie show that the appellant associated himself with terrorist gang and professed the object of terrorist organizations with intention to further the activities of said organizations. He prima-facie tried to radicalize the youth to involve in jihad activities. Under the circumstances, the Government not passing any take down order against the said tweets or posts itself does not mitigate his acts or intention. Moreover they were discovered during investigation and that was preserved for evidence in the case.
Reg. Travel Plan of the appellant:
39. It was contended that the appellant's plan to travel to Afghanistan itself is not an offence, therefore the trial Court was in error to proceed and frame charge under the provisions of UAP Act. The charge sheet records show that plan of the appellant to travel to Afghanistan was not just as a visitor, but to involve in
- 24 -
NC: 2025:KHC:51933-DB CRL.A No.1073/2025 HC-KAR jihad activities and support proscribed organization TTP and Al- Qaeda. Therefore the said contention cannot be countenanced.
40. Above discussed material prima-facie shows that the appellant conspired with accused No.2 with intention to indulge in jihad activities against democratic set up of India. He tried to radicalize Muslim youth to create enmity between the Hindu groups on the ground of religion. Therefore trial Court was justified in holding that there is material to frame charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 120B, 121A, 153A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 20, 38 and 39 of UAP Act. Trial Court on judicious evaluation of the materials placed before it and supplying sound reasoning has passed the impugned order. The same does not warrant interference of this Court. Hence, the following:
ORDER The appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/-
(P SREE SUDHA) JUDGE KSR List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1