The Supreme Court of India refused to intervene in a matter related to granting bail to a young man accused of joining the banned terror organisation Islamic State (ISIS) and booked under the UAPA.The Bombay High Court had granted bail to a 28-year-old man from Parbhani on Friday, August 13, for being a member of the banned terror organisation.
The accused was arrested on August 7,2016. He was booked under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for being part of a terror outfit and under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The accused, Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed had filed a bail application in a special court which was rejected by the court, he further moved to the Bombay High Court, challenging an order of the special court refusing him bail.
A bench of Justices S.S. Shinde and N.J. Jamadar accepted the application of the accused and granted him bail.
“The order passed by the special court is quashed. The appellant (Ahmed) shall be released on bail upon furnishing a bond of Rs one lakh and one or two solvent sureties of the same amount. The appellant shall attend each and every date of the trial and shall not hamper or get in touch with the witnesses in the case.”
According to the prosecution, Ahmed was recruited in ISIS as a part of ‘Parbhani module’, which was planning to carry out a terror attack on the office of the Superintendent of Police in Parbhani.
The top court refused to interfere in the judgment of the Bombay High Court and said that the Judgment by the Bombay High Court bench was good and it should be upheld. However, the court said that a reference to ‘Shreya Singhal’ case was not at all necessary.
Mumbai Police had arrested two women for posting offensive and objectionable comments on Facebook about shutting down the Mumbai city after the death of political leader. The women were arrested under Section 66A of the Information Technology Act of 2000 (ITA).
The two women were later released. After being released, the women filed a petition, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 66A on the ground that it violated the right to freedom of expression.
The Supreme Court bench comprising of Justices Chelameswar and Nariman, in a 52 page judgement struck down the Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, read down Section 79 of the Information Technology Act and the related rules and affirmed the constitutionality of Section 69A of the Act.
Based on the foregoing reasons, the court invalidated Section 66A of ITA in its entirety as it violated the right to freedom of expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.
The case had attracted substantial media attention and criticism.