On January 6, 2025, a division bench of Justices Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Anuradha Shukla at the Madhya Pradesh High Court denied bail to Mohammed Shahid Khan, an Islamic terrorist arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2023 during the bust of the ISIS Jabalpur module. While rejecting the bail plea, the court observed that the accused Shahid and his co-conspirators were “not only supporting the activities of [a] terrorist organisation but also they wanted to stand their own organisation with the intention to ruin the Constitution of India.”
What were the allegations?
Mohammed Shahid Khan was apprehended by the NIA and ATS on May 27, 2023, in connection with FIR/Crime No. RC-14/2023/NIA/DLI, registered at Police Station NIA, Delhi. The case pertained to offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 153-A, 153-B, and 295A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sections 13, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39, and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967.
Khan, along with Syed Mamoor Ali and Mohammad Adil Khan, was part of an ISIS module in Madhya Pradesh, plotting an attack on the Ordnance Factory in Jabalpur—a key defence establishment. The court noted, “The NIA produced sufficient material on record to show that the appellant was involved in the alleged terrorist acts and other preparatory activities.”
During investigations, agencies seized weapons, ammunition, incriminating documents, and electronic gadgets. The plot was tied to ISIS’s efforts to radicalise impressionable Muslim youth through social media and ground-level “Dawah” (invitation to embrace Islam) campaigns.
In its order, the bench remarked, “Religious terrorism is a tragic and dangerous phenomenon that distorts the true teachings of faith and causes immense harm to individuals and societies. While the roots of religious terrorism are deep and complex, it is crucial to understand that no religion inherently supports violence or terror.”
It further stated, “This Court cannot express undue leniency to a person who is facing [a] serious charge of terrorism and unlawful activities. Therefore, considering the overall facts and circumstances, at this stage, we are not inclined to grant bail to the appellant.”
What NIA find during investigations?
NIA’s investigation revealed that during the 2020 nationwide lockdown, the accused individuals started consuming content comparing religions through Zakir Naik’s videos, as well as reading the Quran and Hadith. Mohammad Adil Khan reportedly became influenced by Zakir Naik’s ideology, developed an interest in geopolitics, and started associating Quranic texts with jihad. He adopted a radical mindset, aspiring to establish Sharia law worldwide and rejecting man-made laws.
Similarly, Syed Mamoor Ali consumed lectures by Islamic preachers such as Zakir Naik, Syed Faiz, Dr. Israr Ahmad, and Anwar Al-Awlaki. His internet searches and studies on jihad aligned with his ambition to spread Sharia law globally. Mamoor began giving Dawah to Hindus and distributing pamphlets promoting Islam. Meanwhile, Kasif Khan, another co-accused, collaborated with the group in their unlawful activities, which included creating pamphlets resembling ISIS and Al-Qaeda flags. These were displayed at a local mosque to attract like-minded individuals.
In August 2022, Kasif Khan created a WhatsApp group named “Pics,” which included Mohammad Adil Khan and others. Adil shared ISIS propaganda, including videos, audio, and photos promoting jihad and Sharia law. By December 2022, Syed Mamoor Ali renamed the group “Fisabillilah,” adopting an ISIS-inspired display picture. The group discussed jihad, Khilafat, and Sharia law while adopting code names like “eye S,” “eye sis,” and “Mujahideen” to evade detection. They also designated Mohammed Shahid Khan as the group’s Ameer (leader).
The investigation revealed that co-accused Adil Khan came into contact with an individual named Faris Nazdi through social media, who provided him with content related to ISIS. It was further alleged that “co-accused Adil Khan also downloaded several contents related to ISIS,” and these materials were accessed by other co-accused individuals using the appellant’s laptop. The investigation noted that “co-accused Adil Khan created a bot channel named ‘Dawlah @ baqiyah_bot’ on Telegram.” He uploaded links to the Dawah bot on his Instagram account under the name “abdullahadawallah” and took a backup of the data using the Mega application. Subsequently, “the other co-accused persons also created accounts on social media in order to fulfil their motive.”
The investigation further established that “the present appellant and other co-accused persons conspired to attack the Ordnance Factory in Jabalpur to procure weapons in large quantity in furtherance of their terror activity.” They planned that if capturing the factory proved unsuccessful, “they would blast the Jabalpur Ordnance Factory.” Co-accused Syed Mamoor proposed that “three Mujahids should be positioned behind each security personnel to ensure the factory’s capture.” Their intent extended beyond the factory, aiming “to expand their violence across India.”
It was alleged that Syed Mamoor assigned roles within their group, designating “co-accused Mohd. Adil Khan as the technical head” and tasking “co-accused Mohd. Kasif Khan with the preparation of explosives.” In line with this, “co-accused Kasif Khan shared a link to a YouTube video demonstrating how to prepare highly inflammable explosives using everyday materials.” The investigation highlighted that “the accused persons rejected the concepts of Nationalism, Democracy, the Constitution, and the Voting system, and they actively worked to motivate others to adopt similar views.”
The group sought to “recruit like-minded individuals in large numbers to strengthen their organisation.” They decided to collect monthly contributions for their cause and aimed to “raise additional funds through Bait-ul-Mal.” During the investigation, “various audios, videos, PDFs of ISIS publications, as well as incriminating handwritten diaries, digital devices, literature, pamphlets, and mobile phones were seized from the accused persons.” Additionally, the investigating agency procured “Call Detail Records (CDR) between the accused persons,” leading to their arrest.
To bolster their case, the NIA seized digital devices and derogatory handwritten notes from the appellant’s residence. “Specimen handwriting was taken and sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL),” which confirmed that the handwriting matched the appellant’s. A pen drive recovered from the appellant’s house contained various incriminating videos, audios, images, and documentaries related to ISIS. The seized materials also included “literature on Jihad, ISIS propaganda, and military training for Jihad.”
The NIA’s digital analysis revealed that the appellant’s phone contained photographs “related to ISIS, obscene images of Hindu deities,” and other incriminating materials. He used an application named “Permadelete” to regularly erase data from his device. The investigation further uncovered that the present appellant and co-accused Mohd. Adil Khan were discussing ISIS using code words.
What does the advocate representing the accused say?
The advocate representing the accused, Mohammed Shahid Khan, argued that he has been “falsely implicated” in the case and claimed that the prosecution’s case is based purely on suspicion. The appellant’s counsel emphasized that Shahid has no criminal antecedents and that keeping him in jail would “adversely affect” his family.
Highlighting Shahid’s alleged disability, the counsel contended, “Shahid is physically handicapped and unable to perform such dangerous/difficult tasks.” The counsel further asserted, “Mere exchange of religious beliefs does not constitute any offence.”
The advocate also argued that Shahid Khan did not create the contentious WhatsApp group “Fisabillilah” and pointed out that no weapons were seized from his possession.
It was contended that the Trial Court failed to accurately assess the provisions of the law. The counsel argued that “mere association with a terrorist organization is not sufficient to attract Section 38 of UAPA, and mere support for a terrorist organization is not sufficient to attract Section 39 of UAPA. The association and support have to be with an intention and in furtherance of the activities of the terrorist organization.”
Reiterating this point, the counsel stated, “Mere association with a terrorist organization is not sufficient to attract Section 38 of UAPA, and mere support to a terrorist organization is not sufficient to attract Section 39 of UAPA. The association and support have to be with an intention and in furtherance of the activities of the terrorist organization.” Additionally, the counsel argued that Shahid is a permanent resident of Jabalpur district and there is “no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution evidence.”
What NIA tell the court?
The counsel representing the NIA informed the court that the agency had gathered incriminating material, including “audio clips, video clips, objectionable literature, pamphlets, and handwritten documents” from the possession of all the accused persons, including the appellant, Mohammed Shahid Khan, which clearly indicated his complicity in the crime.
The prosecution also refuted the appellant’s claims regarding delays in the trial proceedings. The counsel argued, “As per Section 19 of the NIA Act, 2008, the trial will be conducted having precedence over other matters, and therefore, there is no delay in trial proceedings.” The counsel further added that if the accused were to be released on bail, “there is a high possibility that he may flee.”
The Judgement
Following the hearing of the opposing parties, the court referred to the Supreme Court’s decisions in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019) and K.A. Najeeb Vs. Union of India (2021) and extensively explained the scope and interpretation of Section 43D(5) of UAPA.
The court noted that the allegations made by the prosecution against appellant Mohammad Shahid Khan are “grave and a serious threat to societal harmony.”
“He was associated with the banned terrorist organization, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), along with other co-accused persons. The present appellant was in possession of several incriminating literatures and pamphlets. He downloaded contents related to ISIS onto his laptop from Mega cloud and subsequently transferred them to one pen drive. The present appellant discussed Shariyah, Jihad, Khilafat, and ISIS along with other co-accused persons. They also planned to disseminate the ideology of ISIS through Dawah programs and started organizing Dars in Falah Darain Masjid, radicalizing the persons who came close to them to recruit them into ISIS,” the bench said.
“Present appellant took active participation in offering Dawah (invitation to religious discussion) to people in Penchkari Masjid to spot the radicalized persons to take them into ISIS. Present appellant, along with other co-accused persons, conspired to attack Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur, to procure weapons in large quantity for the furtherance of the activities of ISIS. The present appellant did not believe in the concepts of Nationalism, Democracy, Principles of Constitution, and voting system. The present appellant was using the Instagram account namely ‘__mohammad.shahid..’ and ‘truthofcertainty,’ and he used to post various incriminating photos against nationalism and Hindu religion. He was constantly searching about ISIS, Jihad, Taliban, Osama Bin Laden, Suicide Bombing, etc.,” the bench noted.
The probe agency also examined Mohammad Shahid Khan’s mobile phone and found obscene pictures of Hindu deities alongside pro-ISIS material.
Based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, the court said that “there is sufficient material in the NIA chargesheet indicating Mohammad Shahid Khan’s active participation and commission of the unlawful activities that attract relevant UAPA sections.”
Pertinently, the court noted that “there is specific evidence showing that Mohammad Shahid Khan actively participated in activities defined as unlawful in the UAPA.”
Comments