'No Material': Odisha Court Acquits Alleged Al-Qaeda Operative Accused Of Raising Funds & Recruiting Youth To Terrorist Organisations

While finding the accused not guilty, Sessions Judge Manas Ranjan Barik held that the IO had not collected any document relating to the membership of the accused in any of the terrorist organizations enlisted in the First Schedule. It said that the IO had not collected nor seized any material regarding supply of any arms and ammunitions by the accused to any terrorist or any organization enlisted in the First Schedule.

“His investigation does not disclose anything to the effect that the accused was instigating the students of the Madrasa or any other person of his community specifically to joint in any of the terrorist organizations as enlisted in the Schedule of the Act. Hence, from the foregoing discussions, it emerges that in the case at hand, there is absolutely dearth of any material to reflect that the accused was involved in any terrorist act or he is a member of any terrorist gang or organization or he has associated himself or professed to be associated with any terrorist organization with the intention to further its activities. In the present case, there is absolutely nothing produced from the side of the prosecution to bring home the charge leveled against the accused u/Secs. 16, 20 and 38 of the UAPA.”

The accused, a native of village Satabatia, Paschimakachha under Jagatpur Police Station, was arrested by Jagatpur police on 17.12.2015 on the credible information regarding his indulgence in unlawful activities like preaching the local public and persons of other States and imbibing in them disaffection against the country in connivance with foreign terrorist organizations.

It was also learnt by the police that the accused was recruiting students of his Madrasa to radical terrorist organisations like AQIS and IM. He was also allegedly raising funds for furthering his terrorist activities. He was running a trust under the name of 'Al-Haramain' for utilising funds and for running the Madrasa.

After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him and charges were framed by the Sessions Court under Sections 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 17 (punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18 (punishment for conspiracy), 18-B (punishment for recruiting person for terrorist act), 20 (punishment for being member of terrorist organisation), 21 (punishment for holding proceeds of terrorism), 38 (membership of a terrorist organisation) and 40 (raising fund for terrorist organisation) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 124-A (sedition) of the IPC.

He was earlier denied bail by the High Court in last November for his prima facie involvement in the aforesaid terrorist activities.

After examination of 46 prosecution witnesses, 116 exhibits and 3 material objects and upon hearing the arguments advanced on behalf of both the prosecution and the defence, the Court was of the view that the IO has neither collected nor seized any material to substantiate the accusation that the accused raised donation or fund in the name of any terrorist organisation. Thus, it held–

“Hence, absolutely nothing emerges from the evidence of the bank officials or any independent witness examined by the prosecution or even the Investigating Officers regarding money trail to or from the account of the accused or the trust for any illegal purpose, for which the accused can be roped in u/Secs. 17, 21 & 40 of the UAPA.”

So far as charges under Sections 18, 18-B of the UAPA and Section 124-A of the IPC were concerned, the Sessions Judge held that none of the witnesses testified anything which would prove indulgence of the accused in the alleged activities. Besides that, he also underlined that none of the Madrasa students was examined to shed light on this aspect.

“I am of the view that if any such witness would have been examined, then he might have shed some light regarding the nature, character or manner of teachings imparted by the accused in his Madrasa. Hence, from the above discussion, this Court is of the humble but firm view that the evidence of the prosecution with regard to Secs. 18 and 18-B of the UAPA or Sec.124-A of the IPC does not appear to be convincing enough to hold the accused guilty under those sections of law.”

The Court also highlighted that the IO failed to collect any document or evidence to the effect that the accused was a member of any terrorist organisation or any of his students joined any terrorist organisation enlisted in the First Schedule of the UAPA. Therefore, it found no substance in the accusations under Sections 16, 20 and 38 of UAPA.

Resultantly, the Court acquitted the accused of all the charges.

Case Title: State of Odisha v. Mohammad Abdur Raheman Alli Khan @ Md. Abdur Raheman @ Maulana Mansoor @ Hyder

Case No: Sessions Trial Case No. 103 of 2017

Date of Judgment: May 26, 2026

Counsel for the State: Sri Pradeepta Kumar Samal, Public Prisecutor, Cuttack & Sri Sanjit Kumar Das, Associate Lawyer, Cuttack.

Counsel for the Accused: Md. Ziaul Haque, Advocate & Associates