The Delhi Court recently issued a notice to National Investigation Agency (NIA) in a plea which is filed by Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed.
He was therefore convicted by the Special Court (POTA, NIA, MCOCA) of Greater Bombay for the case of Malvani ISIS case on the charges of trying to “radicalize Muslim Youths to join the group of Islamic State Terror in India Shafi Armar @ Yusuf-Al-Hindi.”
Therefore, Sayyed was sentenced to 8 years of Imprisonment under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities Act. He was then arrested by NIA in 2016. Agency’s investigation discloses that he with the other accused had intimidated, instigated, and influenced the vulnerable youth of Muslims from the area of Malwani in Mumbai’s Malad and compelled them to become “Fidayeen Fighters” for the sake of Islam. He was also involved in sending youth for “Hijarat” for ISIS joining.
On June 2, 2022, Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge of Patiala House Court for the conspiracy of carrying out a terror strike during Ardh Kumbh Mela at Haridwar. Further, in that case, he was sentenced under several sections of the Indian Penal Code, UAPA & Explosive Substances Act (ESA).
Through the hearing, Advocate Siddharth Suneel while appearing for Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed contended that “I am not impugning the special court’s order. The fact of my previous conviction was not placed before the special court. I am seeking the High Court to invoke its power under Section 226 to do that which is not prohibited under the NIA Act. I am not challenging the mode it should be given in.”
He further stated that the trial court when ordering the sentence and the conviction in Sayyed’s case became “functus officio”, thus he couldn’t approach it on this point. He stated, “Once a trial court has exercised the power of sentence, it becomes functus officio”.
Sayyed had a limited prayer that the sentences imposed by the Bombay Court and Delhi Court be run concurrently.
The council for NIA on the contrary opposed the plea stating that it’s not maintainable under section 21 of the NIA act. It mandates an appeal from an order or judgment other than the interlocutory order that might get heard by the High Court’s division bench.
Justice Jairam Bhambhani stated on this that “It is not an appeal. It is not that ex-facie it is not maintainable. He may have to answer on Section 427 CrPC.”
Taking note of the submissions, the single-judge bench sought NIA’s response to the plea within 6 weeks. Therefore, the court listed the matter for further hearing on May 23.
