Discharging 4 accused in a terror funding case whereas noting that drawing remaining presumption not primarily based on information was harmful, a Delhi court docket noticed that the NIA didn’t make any efforts to seek out out who made the CD containing conversations to hyperlink them to a banned terrorist organisation.
On October 21, Particular Choose Parveen Singh discharged Mohd Salman, Mohd Saleem, Arif Gulam Bashir Dharampuria and Mohd Hussain Molani – who have been arrested by the NIA for allegedly receiving cash from the Pakistan-based proscribed outfit Falah-i-Insaniat Basis (FIF) for attracting a bunch of sympathisers and sleeper cells to “create unrest in India”.
The prosecution contended that Salman was in contact with one Mohammad Kamran, who is alleged to be primarily based in Dubai, made an accused however not arrested within the case, dealt with FIF operations and conspired with Jamat-ud-Dawa (JuD) founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed to launder cash for terror-related actions.
The NIA’s strongest piece of proof was a CD recovered from Dharampuria, who was alleged to be Kamran’s worker. The CD contained purported conversations between FIF’s deputy chief Shahid Mahmood and Kamran, by way of which the prosecution sought to ascertain that they have been “carefully related and concerned in varied unlawful actions”.
The court docket mentioned, “There’s nothing both on report or in submissions that what and if any efforts have been made by the NIA to hint or discover out the one that ready this CD…Nevertheless, on the identical time, even the supply of this CD shouldn’t be clear or when it was ready or the timeframe through which it has been ready.”
The prosecution raised the competition that “Kamran was working very carefully with Mahmood, he ought to have identified that Mahmood was working for FIF and subsequently, by his affiliation with Mahmood, an additional conclusion could be drawn that cash which was being despatched by Kamran belonged to FIF”.
To this, the court docket mentioned that the prosecution’s competition “reveals that there are a lot of ‘ifs’ concerned” and it’s “not primarily based on information however on presumptions which results in a remaining presumption…”