NEW DELHI: Using social media to disseminate radical ideology, even if there is no physical act of terror, can attract UAPA provisions , the Delhi high court said, declining the bail plea of an operative of " The Resistance Front (TRF)", a terror outfit.
HC underscored that the accused posted photos of terrorists and incited people to commit heinous acts and, if released, there is a high possibility of him tampering with the evidence as he is digitally adept.
Expanding on the definition of Section 18 of UAPA, a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that it is "framed in such a broad way that even the usage of social media or any digital activity for the purpose of disseminating radical information and ideology falls within its ambit, and it is not necessary that the action (of the accused) must be a physical activity".
HC found enough evidence against the accused, Arsalan Feroze Ahenger , to deny him bail, as provisions in the section deal with punishment for conspiracy, attempt, advocacy, abetment, or incitement to terrorist acts.
NIA, the investigating agency in the case, said Ahenger was associated with one Mehran Yaseen Shalla, a terror operative working for TRF and LeT. Shalla, along with two other accomplices, was killed in an encounter on Nov 24, 2021. Prior to that, under Shalla's influence, Ahenger was digitally active on various social media platforms, on which radical content was shared, the NIA submitted.
NIA said the accused created several groups on social media like Ansar Gazwat-ul-Hind and Shaikoo Naikoo, apart from multiple Gmail IDs through which radical views were expressed, which aimed to motivate and radicalise vulnerable youth to join terrorist groups like TRF.
"The material on record also indicates that the messages shared by the appellant have the tendency to incite people to join terrorist activities. The appellant also used images, videos, etc, of slain Mehran Yaseen Shalla for glorifying terrorist activities, and the appellant has also been propagating the radical ideology of TRF to create unrest within the country," the court observed in its order.
The lawyer for the accused argued that the trial court failed to appreciate there is no material on record indicating his client's association with TRF and, therefore, UAPA cannot be invoked against him.
HC underscored that the accused posted photos of terrorists and incited people to commit heinous acts and, if released, there is a high possibility of him tampering with the evidence as he is digitally adept.
Expanding on the definition of Section 18 of UAPA, a bench of Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar noted that it is "framed in such a broad way that even the usage of social media or any digital activity for the purpose of disseminating radical information and ideology falls within its ambit, and it is not necessary that the action (of the accused) must be a physical activity".
HC found enough evidence against the accused, Arsalan Feroze Ahenger , to deny him bail, as provisions in the section deal with punishment for conspiracy, attempt, advocacy, abetment, or incitement to terrorist acts.
NIA, the investigating agency in the case, said Ahenger was associated with one Mehran Yaseen Shalla, a terror operative working for TRF and LeT. Shalla, along with two other accomplices, was killed in an encounter on Nov 24, 2021. Prior to that, under Shalla's influence, Ahenger was digitally active on various social media platforms, on which radical content was shared, the NIA submitted.
NIA said the accused created several groups on social media like Ansar Gazwat-ul-Hind and Shaikoo Naikoo, apart from multiple Gmail IDs through which radical views were expressed, which aimed to motivate and radicalise vulnerable youth to join terrorist groups like TRF.
"The material on record also indicates that the messages shared by the appellant have the tendency to incite people to join terrorist activities. The appellant also used images, videos, etc, of slain Mehran Yaseen Shalla for glorifying terrorist activities, and the appellant has also been propagating the radical ideology of TRF to create unrest within the country," the court observed in its order.
The lawyer for the accused argued that the trial court failed to appreciate there is no material on record indicating his client's association with TRF and, therefore, UAPA cannot be invoked against him.
You may also like
Davina McCall shares heartbreaking admission about mum after yearning for unlikely star
How to get best-selling No7 anti-ageing skincare from £5 today as Boots drops 'huge' sale
JEECUP Special Counselling 2025: Round 4 And 5 Timetable Released; Details Here
Rangeen OTT Release Date: Know When & Where To Watch Vineet Kumar Singh's Latest Series
Ankita Lokhande talks to her water glass and sends it positive vibes. Actress calls it her secret to her health and glow