The fact that he has seen certain videos and speeches as aforesaid by itself will not be a reason to implicate him as a terrorist unless there are other materials to establish the same, the bench said.
The Kerala High Court, in a judgment delivered last month, has observed that a person cannot be implicated as a terrorist, merely because he has seen certain videos and speeches.
The division bench of Justice AM Shaffique and Justice P Somarajan made this observation while allowing an appeal filed by an accused challenging the order passed by NIA court refusing to grant bail.
Before the high court, the accused submitted that it is only on account of the matrimonial dispute or under the influence of some other persons his wife made such allegations against him. It was contended that, though laptops were recovered by the NIA, other than a folder containing videos, speeches of one Zakhir Naik, many other Muslim leaders and organizations, no other evidence has been upcoming regarding the alleged terror link.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) told the court that his laptop contained some nude photographs and videos of the girl apart from certain literature regarding the Jihad movement and videos.
The bench observed that the issue relating to the nude photographs of the girl etc. are separate matters which have to be dealt with in accordance with the procedure prescribed.
Setting aside the NIA court order, the bench granted him bail and observed: “As far as the appellant is concerned, he is detained on the ground that he might have involved in terrorism. The fact that he has seen certain videos and speeches as aforesaid by itself will not be a reason to implicate him as a terrorist unless there are other materials to establish the same. Many of such videos, speeches etc are in public domain. Merely for the reason that one sees such matters it may not be possible for any person to establish that the accused is involved in terrorism. In the absence of any such materials forthcoming, even as on date, after expiry of 70 days of imprisonment, we are of the view that this is a fit case in which this Court should exercise jurisdiction to grant bail.”