Mere association with Dawood Ibrahim will not amount to terror gang membership under UAPA: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court recently observed that any association with Dawood Ibrahim, who has been declared a terrorist under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), would not attract the provision against membership of a terrorist gang or organisation [Parvez Zubair Vaid & Anr v State] ..A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande reasoned that since Ibrahim has been designated a terrorist only in his "individual capacity", it would not be sufficient to invoke Section 20 on the ground that a person due to such association belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang.The Court explained that UAPA has different provisions on the activities of an individual and the activities of a terrorist gang or terrorist organisation."Section 20 prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. In the instant case, the material on which reliance is placed, is in the form of Section 164 statement, referring to Parvez Vaid (petitioner) as a Member of D-gang. This, in our view, prima facie, would not attract the offence under section 20, as by the amendment in Schedule IV, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, has been declared as a terrorist in individual capacity, and therefore, any association with him on the pretext that a person belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang will not attract the provisions of Section 20," the Court observed. .The Court made the observations while dealing with the petitions moved by Parvez Zubair Vaid and Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala, who are accused in a case registered under provisions of UAPA, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act and the Indian Penal Code.Besides the claim of them being a member of terrorist organisation, they were also booked for conspiracy and raising funds for terrorist acts. With regard to the NDPS Act, there was an alleged recovery of 600 gms of ganja from Bhiwandiwala's premises. They had approached the Court for bail. Their counsel argued that nothing connected them to the offences alleged against them.In response, the Police conceded there was no material in the charge-sheet to justify invocation Section 17 (Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act) and Section 18 (Punishment for conspiracy, etc) but it defended the invocation of Section 20 UAPA..Some witnesses stated they knew the Vaid as a member of D-Company, it was submitted. The prosecution also highlighted a ₹25,000 transaction made by Parvez to an individual known to be closely associated with Ibrahim.After examining the evidence and considering that UAPA has separate provisions for activities of individuals and organisations, the Court said the statements would not be sufficient to attract Section 20 against Vaid.With regard to Bhiwandiwala, the Court found no reference on his association with 'D' gang..On the charges under NDPS Act, the Court said only 600 grams of ganja was recovered which is neither commercial nor intermediate, but only a small quantity,The bar for releasing Bhiwandiwala on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act shall not come in its way, the Court observed. "Mere sharing of the pictures of Narcotics or prohibited substance definitely do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act," it added.With these observations, the Court granted bail to the accused..Senior Advocate Mihir Desai along with Advocates Samsher Garud, Vighnesh Iyer and Dhwani Parekh appeared for accused Parvez Zubair VaidAdvocates Rishi Bhuta, Vivek Pandey, Ashish Dubey, Ujjwal Gandhi and Ankita Bamboli appeared for accused Faiz Shakeel Bhiwandiwala.APP SP Gavand appeared for State..[Read Order]