Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

15. It is true that against the appellant, Section 16 of UAP Act is not invoked. However, Section 18 of UAP Act says that any conspiracy or attempt to commit, or advocate, abet, advice and incite directly or knowingly facilitate commission of terrorist act or any act preparatory to commission of terrorist act is punishable with imprisonment upto life. In the present case it is true that the appellant is not charge sheeted for commission of the terrorist act. However the allegation is that he was inciting, advocating and making preparations for commission of the terrorist act. He was inciting service team youth to attack the Hindu leaders and to disturb the rule of law, therefore, there is no merit in the contention that the provisions of UAP Act are totally inapplicable to the appellant.

- 16 -

NC: 2024:KHC:52098-DB organization or training terrorism. Such perverse findings of the High Court deserve to be strongly deprecated more particularly when the appellant has not alleged the offence under Section 15 of UAPA either in the FIR or in the charge sheet against the respondents. The alleged offences are under Section 18, 18A, 18B etc. For the purpose of considering the offence under Section 18, the commission of terrorist act as contemplated in Section 15 of UAPA is not required to be made out. What Section 18 contemplates is that whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets, advises or incites, directly or knowingly facilitates the commission of a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act would be punishable under the said provision. Hence, if there is any material or evidence to show that the accused had conspired or attempted to commit a terrorist act, or committed any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act, such material evidence would be sufficient to invoke Section

18. For attracting Section 18, the involvement of the accused in the actual commission of terrorist act as defined in Section 15 need not be shown. The High Court having miserably failed to comprehend the correct import of Section 18 read with the definition of terrorist act as contemplated in Section 15 of UAPA, in our opinion the High Court has fallen into a patent and manifest error.

23. This Court has often interpreted the counter terrorism enactments to strike a balance between the civil liberties of the accused, human rights of the victims and compelling interest of the state. It cannot be denied that National security is always of paramount importance and any act in aid to any terrorist act -

19. The present case is fully covered by the said judgment. Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned Senior Counsel contended that the bail application of co-accused of Barakathullah was allowed by Madras High Court and the

- 18 -

NC: 2024:KHC:52098-DB application of Union of India for cancellation of bail was rejected.

20. Reading of the judgment of the Madras High Court in Mohammed Yusuf v. Union of India (Crl.A.No.700/2023 DD 15.12.2023) shows that he was granted bail on the ground that there were no materials to show that he was involved in terrorist act or any act which could be construed as terrorist act and there was no material to proceed against him. Therefore that cannot be justifiably applied to the present case.