Orissa High Court Denies Bail To Alleged Al-Qaeda Operative Accused Of Recruiting Youths To Terrorist Organizations
The Orissa High Court has recently rejected the bail plea of Md. Abdur Raheman, allegedly linked to the international terrorist organization 'Al Qaeda', who is in custody since 2015 on the accusation of illegally running Madrasas in order to indoctrinate and engage youths in anti-national activities.While denying relief, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy found the accusation against...
The Orissa High Court has recently rejected the bail plea of Md. Abdur Raheman, allegedly linked to the international terrorist organization 'Al Qaeda', who is in custody since 2015 on the accusation of illegally running Madrasas in order to indoctrinate and engage youths in anti-national activities.
While denying relief, the Bench of Justice Gourishankar Satapathy found the accusation against the petitioner to be grave. It also observed –
“…since there is allegation against the petitioner for his links with Al Qaeda and the act alleged against the petitioner having ramification over national security and safety of local people at large and the petitioner being not found to have satisfied the conditions of Sec. 43-D(5), this Court does not consider it proper to grant bail to the petitioner, especially when he is found convicted in another case and sentenced to undergo RI for seven years and five months.”
An FIR was lodged by the IIC, Jagatpur Police Station, Cuttack upon receipt of credible information imputing the petitioner in propagation of anti-national ideologies amongst the local people. Upon enquiry, it was further found that the petitioner and his associates ran Madrasas in certain villages for years to train around 80 youths, with an ultimate objective to induct them in terrorist organisations like Al Qaeda and Indian Muzahideen.
He allegedly received funds from foreign sources to run the Madrasas, which were allegedly used as training centres for terrorist and anti-national activities. Upon completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against him under Section 124-A of the IPC (sedition) along with Sections 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy), 18-B (recruiting persons for terrorist act), 20 (being member of terrorist organisation), 21 (holding proceeds of terrorism) and 40 (raising fund for terrorist organisation) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
While the case stood thus, he was also found guilty by Additional Sessions Judge-2, Patiala House Court, New Delhi for similar offences under the UAPA and by an order dated 14.02.2023, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and five months.
Though the petitioner had approached the trial Court, i.e. Sessions Judge, Cuttack for grant of bail, the same was rejected on the ground of grave accusations touching upon national security. Thus, he reapplied for bail before the High Court. The main ground raised for grant of bail was long pre-conviction incarceration.
However, the Court was not convinced by such contention. Justice Satapathy was of the firm view that the accusation against the petitioner is not only “serious” but also “grave”. He acknowledged the fact that 38 witnesses have been examined by the trial Court so far and the trial is yet to be concluded.
The Court was of the opinion that even though the petitioner has remained in custody for almost ten years, he cannot be granted bail especially considering his alleged links with terrorist organisation like Al Qaeda, which was founded by terrorist Osama Bin Laden. It further took into account the conviction recorded by the ASJ, Patiala House Court in a similar offence, which also gave certain credence to the present accusations.
As a result, the Court had reasons to believe that the accusation against the petitioner is prima facie true, which is a ground for denial of bail under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. Accordingly, the bail was rejected. Nonetheless, the Sessions Court was requested to expedite the trial and conclude the same as soon as feasible.
Case Title: Md. Abdur Raheman @ Md. Abdur Raheman Alli Khan v. State of Odisha
Case No: BLAPL No. 644 of 2025
Date of Order: November 11, 2025
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Satya Ranjan Mulia, Advocate
Counsel for the State: Mr. A. Pradhan, Additional Public Prosecutor
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 152