Latest news with #UnlawfulActivitiesAct
Hindustan Times
27-05-2025
- Hindustan Times
NIA chargesheets three accused for supplying arms, explosives to insurgents in Northeast
New Delhi, The National Investigation Agency has chargesheeted three more accused in a case of trafficking and supply of illegal arms, ammunition and explosives to insurgents in Mizoram, officials said on Tuesday. The trio, identified as Vanlaldailova, Lalmuanpuia and Lalrinchhunga alias Albert, hail from Mizoram, they said. They were arrested on December 6, 2024, following the seizure of arms, ammunition and explosive material during searches at their residences. Investigations revealed that all three had played significant roles in supporting terrorist activities and aggravating ethnic violence in Manipur through the distribution of arms to insurgent groups, the officials claimed. They had also raised funds with the knowledge that the proceeds would be used for procuring weapons for terror activities, thereby threatening public order and national integrity, the officials alleged. Vanlaldailova, a licensed arms and ammunition dealer , had conspired with two other Mizoram-based co-accused Lalngaihawma and Lalmuanawma, to procure and illegally supply weapons across the border and in Manipur for use in terrorist activities, a statement issued by the NIA said. He had misused his dealership to promote such activities, according to the probe agency. Lalmuanpuia and Lalrinchhunga had actively participated in this illegal network by facilitating the procurement and delivery of arms, ammunition and explosives for insurgent use, the statement said. Lalrinchhunga was also engaged in the illegal manufacture and repair of firearms, it said. A case was registered by the NIA in New Delhi in December 2023 on the basis of credible inputs relating to the involvement of Lalngaihawma and Lalmuanawma in the supply of arms, ammunition and explosives across the northeastern region and other parts of India, including Delhi. The main charge sheet was filed against Lalngaihawma in July 2024, followed by a supplementary charge sheet against Solomona in November. In the second supplementary chargesheet filed on Monday before the NIA special court here, Vanlaldailova, Lalmuanpuia and Lalrinchhunga have been charged under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code , Arms Act, 1959, Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and the Unlawful Activities Act, 1967, the statement said.
Hindustan Times
16-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Delhi HC refuses interim bail to PFI leader
New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has denied interim bail on medical grounds to Popular Front of India leader A S Ismail, who is accused in a terror case noting he was showing improvement. A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar said the latest report by a AIIMS medical board showed his condition wouldn't deteriorate if interim bail was not granted. "Material on record indicates that the appellant is being given proper treatment and he is showing improvement even when he is in incarceration. This indicates that the appellant is being given proper treatment in Jail," the bench said. The court in its May 13 order added, "Moreover, the latest medical report by the medical board of the AIIMS shows that the condition of the appellant is not such that it will deteriorate if the appellant is not granted interim bail, as prayed for by the appellant." The court directed the jail authorities to continue with the treatment as prescribed by the doctors including regular physiotherapy and continuous monitoring of the blood pressure of Ismail who was arrested on September 22, 2022. The jail authorities were further asked to take him to AIIMS once every month for his condition to be monitored. According to the NIA, the case relates to conspiracy hatched by the office bearers, members and cadres of PFI who were involved in raising or collecting funds from within India and abroad through banking channels, Hawala and donations for committing or getting committed, terrorist acts in various parts of India including Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Uttar Pradesh and Delhi. Following the arrest of all accused persons, including the appellant, a chargesheet was filed against 19 accused persons, which included PFI, under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities Act. The NIA alleged Ismail was involved in the conspiracy of radicalising the gullible muslim youth by provoking them against the Indian government and leaders of organisations who do not believe in the establishment of islamic rule in India.
Hindustan Times
08-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Completely disconnected with Umar Khalid: Sharjeel Imam tells Delhi HC
New Delhi, Activist Sharjeel Imam, accused in a February 2020 riots case, on Thursday argued in the Delhi High Court that he was "completely disconnected" with the place, time and co-accused, including Umar Khalid. Imam's counsel urged a bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur to show "compassion" in deciding his bail plea. His speeches and WhatsApp chats never called for any unrest, the counsel added. "This boy has spent more than five years in continuous custody. He is the breadwinner. He has an old ailing mother and no father," said Imam's counsel. The counsel reiterated that he was not even in the capital post January 15, 2020 and was arrested by the police from his hometown in Bihar on January 28, 2020 in a separate case. He contended Imam, as a result, did not part take in any of the "conspiratorial" meetings with others. While the prosecution's conspiracy case was based on messages exchanged among the accused persons, Imam's counsel denied chatting with them saying he was not in purported main WhatsApp group where chakka jams were discussed. The WhatsApp group Imam was a part of, had no messages that even "remotely incite violence", the lawyer said. "There is not a single message shown to show one community was pitted against evidence of violence versus 40 evidence of non-violence demolish the case of the prosecution," the counsel added. The lawyer argued though a witness had alleged that he was "related to Umar Khalid and some other accused", Imam had no such connection. Imam's lawyer said his client was already facing prosecution in separate cases alleging sedition and hate speech, in which he was granted bail. There were judicial pronouncements that found there was no consequent violence following his speeches, he added. With respect to the police's case that he raised the Shaheen Bagh protest site, the lawyer argued Imam distanced himself from the site on January 2, 2020 apprehending involvement of miscreants and the present case ought not to be "mixed" with violence that broke earlier in Jamia Milia Islamia in December 2019. Umar Khalid, Imam and several others have been booked under Unlawful Activities Act and provisions of the Indian Penal Code for allegedly being the "masterminds" of the February 2020 riots, which had left 53 people dead and over 700 injured. The violence erupted during the protests against the CAA and NRC. Imam was arrested in the case on August 25, 2020. The matter would not be heard on May 21.
Hindustan Times
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Parliament breach: Accused can't compare themselves with Bhagat Singh, says Delhi HC
New Delhi, Calling the Parliament building India's pride, the Delhi High Court on Wednesday said nobody could play a prank in there and those arrested for its security breach in 2023 couldn't equate themselves with martyrs like Bhagat Singh. Parliament breach: Accused can't compare themselves with Bhagat Singh, says Delhi HC A bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar further asked Delhi Police to explain why the accused persons were booked for an offence punishable under the stringent Unlawful Activities Act . "Nobody can even play a prank or do something like... in the Parliament building which is of course the pride of the country. Nobody is saying anything about that. But the question is whether an offence under UA, which has stricter bail considerations, made out? There can be other Acts under which you can proceed. No problem in that. The issue is whether offence under UA is made out," the bench said. The court was hearing the bail pleas of Neelam Azad and Mahesh Kumawat who were arrested in the case. The high court asked the police to explain whether carrying or using a smoke canister, inside and outside Parliament attracted UA and if it fell under the definition of terrorist activities. "Otherwise their liberty should be not curtailed and you can continue with the trial and they can be let out on bail. They are only on the application for bail," the bench said. The high court went on, "We are not for a minute saying that they have done a prank or a protest and this is the form of protest. No, this is not a form of protest and you are actually disrupting a place where serious work gets transited, where laws for the country are made. It is not a joke. It is not even a place where you can compare yourself to martyrs like Bhagat Singh who have done it. You cannot equate yourselves with them. Still the question is UA." Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, representing Delhi Police, referred to the incident on December 13, also the date of 2001 Parliament attack, and argued it was a premeditated act and the authorities were taking it "very seriously". "It has certainly caused terror in the parliamentarians, they were shocked," he added. Since the place of the incident was Parliament, Sharma said, even a small act would be viewed with a magnitude of a different variety. "This is an emerging situation and this type of an act has been done for the first time in the newly constructed Parliament," he said. The bench asked him to support his statement with a case law or any other material and posted the bail pleas on May 19. "Smoke canisters do not have metal inside them that is why they passed through the metal detectors. It does not have metal that is why it does not emit sharpness to hurt people and passed through the gates. It is the same as we use in Holi and IPL. You see it in children's parties as well," it said. As the prosecutor defended its case saying the court must see the intention with which smoke canisters were used in Parliament by the accused, the bench clarified it was not calling the actions of the accused correct. In a major security breach on the anniversary of the 2001 Parliament terror attack, accused Sagar Sharma and Manoranjan D allegedly jumped into the Lok Sabha chamber from the public gallery during Zero Hour, released yellow gas from canisters and sloganeered before they were overpowered by some MPs. Around the same time, two other accused Amol Shinde and Azad allegedly sprayed coloured gas from canisters while shouting "tanashahi nahi chalegi " outside the Parliament premises. The police claimed detailed investigations indicated Manoranjan and his associates had been planning a disruptive terror attack in Parliament. The trial court rejected Azad's bail plea, saying there was sufficient evidence to believe allegations against her were "prima facie" true. All accused persons Azad, Manoranjan D, Sagar Sharma, Amol Dhanraj Shinde, Lalit Jha and Mahesh Kumawat already had the knowledge about the threat given by designated terrorist Gurpatwant Singh Pannu for targeting Parliament on December 13, 2023, it added. Four were taken into custody from the spot whereas Jha and Kumawat were arrested later. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Time of India
01-05-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
Sukhbir did not record statement in attack probe: Pb cops to HC
1 2 3 4 Chandigarh: Punjab Police have claimed that investigating officers (IOs) probing the attack on former deputy CM and Shiromani Akali Dal (SAD) leader Sukhbir Singh Badal made all efforts to meet him at his places of availability, but he did not record his statement with cops. Police also provided a chart containing the names of officers and the dates when they approached Badal, asking him to record his statement. Police clarified that after a thorough investigation , they found no motivation for the attacker, Narain Singh Chaura , other than him being upset over sacrilege incidents. "During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused, Chaura, harboured resentment against the petitioner, Sukhbir Singh Badal, due to the sacrilege of Guru Granth Sahib Ji, the promotion of his own family members in SAD, the firing incident at Behbal Kalan and Bargari, and because Sukhbir was not awarded proper religious punishment," the state police claimed. These assertions were made by the police in a detailed reply submitted to the Punjab and Haryana high court through Jaspal Singh, ACP (central), Amritsar, in response to a petition filed by Badal to transfer the probe of the incident from Punjab Police to another independent central agency. According to police, Chaura conspired with Dharam Singh, and in pursuance of that Chaura came to the spot intending to eliminate the petitioner, Sukhbir Singh Badal, but his plot was thwarted. It was also stated that no other persons or organisations, other than the two people, were found involved. Regarding Badal's claims that Chaura had conspired against his family in the past, police claimed that the case files of previous cases registered against Chaura were examined, but no such fact emerged. It was informed that Chaura was arrested on Feb 26, 2013, in FIR No. 201 registered at Amritsar's Civil Lines police station on May 8, 2010, under the Explosive Act and Unlawful Activities Act. The HC was informed that inspector Harsandeep Singh was deputed to record Badal's statement and visited his house at Badal in Muktsar Sahib, meeting him in person on April 17. The officer asked him to record his statement, but he refused. Interestingly, in his plea before the HC, Badal claimed that his statement was never recorded, demonstrating the intentional misdirection of the investigation. However, the police submitted that statements from some witnesses clarified Chaura took out a pistol from his waistband with the intention to kill and attacked Sukhbir Singh Badal. The statements of these witnesses are consistent with the CCTV footage of the place of occurrence, which was obtained from SGPC. The court was informed that the challan was presented in the case, charges against the accused were framed, and the case was pending for prosecution evidence on May 7 before the trial court. Sukhbir's plea before HC Sukhbir approached the Punjab and Haryana high court seeking a probe from an independent agency into the incident of the attack on him. According to him, the state's investigation agency appears to be acting under political influence, compromising the fairness of the probe. It was argued that the investigating agency deliberately attempted to dilute the gravity of the crime by misrepresenting facts in the FIR and final report.
