Bengaluru: In a significant ruling, the Karnataka High Court has imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 on Dr Sabil Ahmed, a suspected member of the banned terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), who had sought to reduce the travel and allowance (TADA) amount of a scientist summoned to provide testimony against him. Dr Ahmed, who faces charges of plotting to assassinate Hindu leaders, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for his involvement in a larger conspiracy to carry out terrorist activities.
The Legal Battle
The case traces its origins back to a petition filed by Dr. Sabil Ahmed, alias Motu Doctor, who had been arrested for his alleged involvement in a terrorist conspiracy. The scientist, who had been called to give scientific evidence related to the case, was supposed to travel from Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, to Bengaluru for the trial. Dr. Ahmed had agreed to pay the travel and allowance (TADA) of the witness but later sought a reduction in the amount.
Read More: Karnataka Police arrests six Bangladeshis; seizes fake Aadhaar and PAN cards
The NIA Special Court had dismissed the petition filed by Dr. Ahmed, challenging the travel allowances of the witness, and had ordered that the full amount be paid. This decision was then appealed in the High Court, where the bench, headed by Justice KS Mudagal and Justice Vijay Kumar A Patil, heard the matter and imposed the Rs 10,000 fine on Dr. Ahmed for attempting to delay the trial proceedings.
High Court’s Ruling
In its ruling, the bench noted that Dr. Ahmed had failed to provide adequate evidence to support his claims that the cost of the witness’s travel was too high. The court ordered that Dr Ahmed must pay the full TA/DA amount of Rs. 20,650 to the witness within the next 10 days. Failure to do so would result in the petitioner losing the right to challenge the decision further, the bench said.
The High Court also directed the District Legal Service Authority to confiscate Dr Ahmed’s properties if the fine of Rs 10,000 is not paid within the stipulated time. This decision comes as part of an effort to prevent further delays and ensure that the accused does not misuse legal processes to extend the trial unnecessarily.
Further Delays and Abuse of Court Process
The court was particularly critical of Dr Ahmed’s conduct, which had resulted in unnecessary delays in the trial proceedings. The trial had already been delayed multiple times at the request of the accused, who had cited various reasons for seeking adjournments, including health issues. However, the bench noted that no medical evidence had been provided to support these claims.
It was highlighted that the trial had been dragged on for over a year, primarily due to the actions of the accused, who had a history of criminal activity, including previous convictions in Saudi Arabia and the United Kingdom. The High Court noted that Dr Ahmed’s repeated attempts to delay the proceedings by filing frivolous petitions amounted to an abuse of the court process. The bench stated that such attempts to delay the case further would not be entertained.
Background of the Case
The case involves serious charges against Dr. Ahmed and his associates, who were allegedly conspiring with the banned terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) to carry out terrorist activities targeting prominent Hindu leaders and law enforcement officials. According to the charges, Dr. Ahmed had been involved in acquiring weapons, recruiting members, and raising funds through criminal activities to support the terror group’s operations.
The NIA’s investigation revealed that Dr Ahmed had been using fake identities and had even obtained mobile numbers through fraudulent means. Additionally, he was allegedly helping to recruit individuals from Pakistan to join the LeT network in Saudi Arabia, intending to carry out terror attacks in India.
The NIA’s charge sheet also outlines the involvement of Dr. Ahmed and his associates in several criminal activities, including attempts to assassinate political leaders and disrupt communal harmony. On August 29, 2012, Dr Ahmed and other suspects were allegedly involved in a plot to murder Pratap Simha, a former MP from Kodagu-Mysore, but they were apprehended by the police before they could execute the plan. The authorities seized weapons, including a pistol and ammunition, during the arrest.
NIA Investigation and Special Court Proceedings
Following the investigation, the NIA filed a charge sheet against Dr Ahmed and his co-conspirators. The special NIA court had initiated proceedings to frame charges against the accused. Over the course of the trial, a key scientific witness was called to testify multiple times. However, the accused repeatedly sought adjournments, citing personal reasons, and delayed the process further.
In one instance, Dr Ahmed promised to cover the travel costs of the witness, but later filed a petition seeking a reduction in the travel and allowance (TA/DA) amount of Rs 20,650, which was fixed by the special court. This petition was dismissed, and Dr. Ahmed moved the High Court for a review, which led to the current fine being imposed.
Repercussions and Final Decision
The High Court, in its order, emphasized that the petitioner’s actions had unnecessarily prolonged the trial, thereby delaying justice. The court also remarked on the abuse of court procedures by the accused, particularly given his involvement in a serious terrorist conspiracy and his attempts to further complicate the judicial process.
Special Public Prosecutor P Prasannakumar, representing the NIA, argued that the accused was using every possible means to delay the proceedings. He reiterated that the cost of the witness’s travel was a necessary expense, and that the accused should not be allowed to circumvent his obligations through legal technicalities.
With the fine imposed and the travel allowance issue resolved, the trial is now expected to proceed without further delays. The scientific evidence hearing is scheduled to begin on January 8, 2024, with the next session slated for February 15, 2024.
This case serves as a stark reminder of the lengths to which some individuals may go to delay justice, even in the face of serious charges, and the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that such tactics are not allowed to derail legal proceedings.
