The petitioner was arrested by the Delhi Police in 2016 for his involvement in "an ISIS-related case concerning the planning of an attack during the Ardh Kumbh Mela”.  Terrorism threatens the national security and the fabric of society, the Delhi High Court recently said while dismissing the plea of an alleged ISIS operative seeking “concurrent” running of sentences awarded to him in two Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) cases. The petitioner, Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed, was convicted by the Court of NIA Special Judge at Greater Bombay for offences under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and provisions of the UAPA in January 2022. In this case, the maximum sentence awarded to him was eight years. Sayyed was also convicted by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Court, New Delhi, for offences under IPC Section 120B IPC and provisions of UAPA in May 2022. The maximum sentence awarded to him was seven years. A single judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma in its June 7 order said, “There is no gainsaying that terrorism not only threatens the national security of the country but also the very fabric of society by targeting innocent civilians and institutions indiscriminately, with an aim to instil fear among the common and innocent citizens of a country. The impact of such terrorist activities on society is profound and far-reaching, as these crimes have the capacity to sow fear and insecurity among communities, as well as disrupt the social harmony”. Justice Sharma said such activities also result in “loss of innocent lives, destruction of property, and destabilisation of regions” which have a long-lasting impact. “Thus, the gravity of such crimes lies in their potential to cause widespread harm, both physically and psychologically, and their challenge to fundamental values of peace, tolerance, and coexistence in a nation,” observed Justice Sharma. Sayyed argued there should be a “consideration of the totality of the sentences” that an accused must undergo if the sentences are made to run consecutively. He argued a court can, even when substantive sentences of imprisonment have been imposed in different trials/convictions, direct the concurrent running of such separate sentences. The National Investigation Agency (NIA), represented by Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik, opposed Sayyed’s plea arguing that two distinct convictions and subsequent sentences have been awarded under certain offences of UAPA, which are serious, affecting the sovereignty and security of the country. The High Court noted that in the case before the trial court in Delhi, the petitioner was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police in 2016 for his involvement in “an ISIS-related case concerning the planning of an attack during the Ardh Kumbh Mela in Haridwar, Uttarakhand”. The case was later taken over by NIA.

Concerning the case before the trial court in Greater Bombay, the High Court noted that the same was registered by the Mumbai Police ATS against one “Aiyaz Md Sultan and other unknown persons for instigating youths to join ISIS and furtherance of activities of Islamic State”. During the trial, the petitioner pleaded guilty to the charges framed against him. Dismissing the plea, the Delhi High Court said, “The offences committed by the petitioner, for which he has been convicted upon conclusion of trial in two different cases, cannot be termed as part of a ‘same transaction’. The petitioner was not awarded maximum sentence ie imprisonment for life in either of the cases by the trial courts, rather a lenient approach was adopted by the courts while awarding sentence to him”. Justice Sharma observed the offence committed by the petitioner under the provisions of UAPA is “grave and serious in nature” having an impact on the society at large as well as the “national security and communal harmony of the nation”. “In one case, the petitioner has been convicted for conspiring to carry out an attack in the city of Haridwar during the Ardh Kumbh Mela and raising funds for the same. Whereas in the other case, the petitioner has been convicted for promoting the activities of ISIS, including recruitment of youths for the purpose of enticing them to become ‘fidayeen’, as well as for planning the assassination of a leader of Hindu Mahasabha,” the High Court said.