Delhi court rejects NIA claims against 4 booked under UAPA
text_fields
New Delhi: A Delhi court granted bail to four men who were under NIA custody after being caught on allegations of receiving funds from Pakistan to carry out terror attacks in India. The court dismissed the NIA's deciphering of words the accused were alleged to have used in their WhatsApp chats.
The court said that there is no evidence to reach a conclusion that the word 'ghee' was used to mean explosives and the word 'Khidmat' meant to 'terror service'.
The NIA case was that Mohd Salman, Mohd Saleem, Arif Gulam Bashir Dharampuria and Mohd. Hussain Molani, received money from a Pakistani terrorist outfit, Falah-i-Insaniat Foundation (FIF), for the dubious activities, including creating sympathisers and sleeper cells to "create unrest in India".
The NIA claimed that the fund came to their hands in the name of mosques construction, though every fund transaction, particularly related to international is under a mechanism where a transaction could easily be interfered with by the central agencies.
The NIA is said to have submitted before the court two chats recovered from the mobile phone of Mohd Salman to build its case against the men. In one of the chats, the use of the word 'ghee' is found in the statement "ghee ka intezaam ho gaya hai, Bombay wali party bhi aayegi…unke hatho bhijwa denge (made arrangements for Ghee, the Bombay party will also come, and it will be sent through them).
And the other read, "…aap khidmat me the na isliye aapko nahi pata hai ( you were in the service that is why you don't know it).
The NIA argument is that the word 'Ghee' is a code word for explosives and the 'khidmat' is nothing but at the service of terrorists.
Special Judge Parveen Singh said that though the word could be interpreted in many ways, no evidence is there to prove that it was used for these particular purposes. The court agreed that there may be "some suspicion raised as to what this 'special purpose' was or what those different plans were. However, mere suspicion cannot substitute evidence."
