After they spent over seven years in jail, a Delhi court on Thursday (March 19, 20260 acquitted two persons booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Additional Sessions Judge Amit Bansal of the Patiala House Courts observed that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges slapped on the accused, Jamsheed Zahoor Paul and Parvaiz Rashid.
The two were charged under provisions of the UAPA relating to conspiracy and membership of a terrorist organisation, as well as under the Arms Act. The FIR named two more person in this case among which one died in 2018 before arrest and another remains absconding.
According to the prosecution, intelligence inputs suggested that certain individuals from Jammu and Kashmir had pledged allegiance to ISIS and were attempting to procure weapons from Uttar Pradesh for use in terrorist activities. Acting on this information, a Special Cell team arrested the two accused near Jama Masjid in Delhi on September 6, 2018, allegedly recovering a pistol and five live cartridges from each. The prosecution also claimed that the accused were in contact with suspected operatives through BBM chats and had received funds for procuring weapons.
During the trial, the prosecution examined 23 witnesses, including police personnel and forensic experts. The accused denied all charges and sought trial.
Citing serious inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case and lapses in the investigation, the court questioned the details of the alleged recovery of arms and ammunition from the accused.
“The number of FIR given on the top of the aforesaid documents clearly indicate that either the FIR was recorded prior to the alleged recovery or number of the said FIR was inserted in these documents after its registration and in both the situations it seriously reflects upon the veracity of the prosecution version and creates a great deal of doubt about the recovery of arms and ammunition in the manner alleged by the prosecution,” the Court said.
The Court also observed that even when the prosecution claimed that the recovery of arms took place at a ‘highly public place i.e. Bus Stop, Metro Station’ and admittedly by prosecution witnesses that many public witnesses were present, yet no explanation has been provided as to why independent witnesses were not joined at any stage in this case.
The Court also raised concerns on the handling of electronic evidence. Mobile phones seized from the accused were kept unsealed for nearly two months before being sent for forensic analysis. The court found no satisfactory explanation for this delay or for the failure to deposit the devices in the malkhana promptly. This raised the possibility of tampering, leading the court to reject the reliability of the alleged digital evidence, including BBM chat records.
The accused were represented by advocate Ahmad Ibrahim, Tamanna Pankaj, Archit Krishna and Priya Vats.
Published – March 20, 2026 03:21 am IST
