New Delhi – A Delhi court on Thursday discharged two individuals accused of conspiring to revive the banned Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Indian Mujahideen (IM), citing the prosecution’s failure to establish a prima facie case against them. The decision highlights the importance of admissible evidence in terrorism-related cases and underscores judicial scrutiny in complex security matters.

The case was being heard by Additional Sessions Judge Amit Bansal and involved Abdul Subhan Qureshi, also known by aliases Abdus Subhan, Tauqueer, and Abdul Rehman, and Ariz Khan, also known as Junaid or Salim. The charges against them were framed under Sections 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which deal with terrorist acts and membership in banned terrorist organisations, as well as Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, relating to criminal conspiracy.

In an order dated December 20, the court observed that the chargesheet relied heavily on disclosure and confessional statements allegedly made by the accused while in police custody. The judge noted that such statements are inadmissible in court unless supported by independent recovery or discovery of facts. “There is absolutely no admissible material on record in the chargesheet of the present case to show or raise a grave suspicion against both the accused persons that they entered into a conspiracy to revive activity of banned terrorist organisations SIMI and IM in India or that they were members of the said banned terrorist organisations,” the court stated.

Given the lack of sufficient material to substantiate the charges, the court concluded that framing charges would be inappropriate and therefore discharged the accused. The ruling read: “Both the accused persons, namely, Abdul Subhan Qureshi alias Abdus Subhan alias Tauqueer alias Abdul Rehman and Ariz Khan alias Junaid alias Salim are accordingly discharged in the present case for the offences punishable under Sections 120B IPC and 18/20 of the UA.” Following the discharge, the court ordered their immediate release from judicial custody, provided they were not required in connection with any other case.

The prosecution had contended that both individuals were senior cadres of SIMI and IM, involved in an international conspiracy with meetings held in countries such as Pakistan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the UAE. These meetings were allegedly aimed at reviving sleeper cells and re-establishing the operational capabilities of the banned organisations in India. Abdul Subhan, in particular, was described as a central figure in the purported plot to rejuvenate the groups’ activities domestically.

However, the court observed that previous criminal cases and chargesheets against the accused could not, on their own, provide grounds to frame charges in this particular case. The judge emphasized that each case must be evaluated on the specific evidence available, and that mere association or past allegations are insufficient to establish culpability under Sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA or Section 120B of the IPC.

The Special Cell of the Delhi Police had lodged the case following intelligence inputs received after a 2014 blast in Bijnor. The investigation suggested that 5-6 members of SIMI and Indian Mujahideen were organizing meetings abroad with the objective of reviving their cadres in India. Despite these claims, the evidence presented before the court failed to demonstrate a direct link between the accused and the alleged conspiracy, ultimately leading to their discharge.

Legal experts have noted that this ruling underscores the stringent evidentiary standards required in cases under anti-terrorism laws. While intelligence reports and past criminal records may guide investigations, courts require concrete and admissible material to proceed with charges. In this instance, the reliance on statements allegedly obtained during police custody, without corroborative recovery or independent verification, did not meet the threshold necessary to sustain the allegations in a court of law.

The case also illustrates the challenges faced by law enforcement agencies in prosecuting individuals in complex terrorism-related investigations. International elements, covert networks, and historical intelligence inputs may indicate potential threats, but translating these into legally tenable evidence requires meticulous collection, documentation, and adherence to procedural safeguards.

For Abdul Subhan and Ariz Khan, the court’s decision effectively clears them of charges in this specific SIMI-IM conspiracy case, allowing them to regain their freedom unless implicated in any other ongoing legal proceedings. The ruling also reinforces the judiciary’s role in balancing national security concerns with the protection of individual rights, ensuring that prosecutions are based on verifiable evidence rather than assumptions or uncorroborated intelligence.

In conclusion, the Delhi court’s discharge of the two accused in the SIMI-IM conspiracy case highlights the crucial role of admissible evidence in cases involving alleged terrorist activities. While the prosecution alleged that the accused were senior operatives attempting to revive banned organisations through international conspiracies, the absence of concrete, admissible evidence led to the dismissal of charges. The decision serves as a reminder of the legal safeguards embedded in India’s justice system, which demand that every individual be presumed innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.