New Delhi, June 5 (IANS) In a setback to former Popular Front of India (PFI) Chairman E. Abubacker and other office-bearers of the banned outfit, a Delhi court has ordered framing of charges against them in a National Investigation Agency (NIA) case alleging a conspiracy to overthrow the secular democratic Government of India and establish an Islamic Caliphate by 2047 through violent means.

Dismissing the discharge pleas moved by several accused, Additional Sessions Judge Prashant Sharma of the Patiala House Courts held that the material placed on record raised a “grave suspicion” against the accused and warranted framing of charges under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

According to the NIA FIR registered in April 2022, the accused, acting through the PFI and its National Executive Council (NEC), conspired to establish an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia law in India by waging an armed struggle against the State.

“The case of the prosecution… is that the accused, acting through and on behalf of the Popular Front of India and its National Executive Council, conspired to overthrow the secular democratic Government of India and to establish an Islamic Caliphate under Sharia law in India by or before the year 2047,” the court said.

The judge further said that at the stage of framing of charge, the court is not required to record a finding of guilt but only determine whether the material on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused.

“At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is not called upon to record a finding of guilt. Where the material placed on record discloses grave suspicion against the accused, the Court must frame the charge,” the order said.

Rejecting the contention that no terrorist act had been committed, the court said that offences relating to raising funds, conspiracy, preparation, organising arms training camps and recruitment for terrorist acts under the UAPA do not require completion of a terrorist act.

The court also declined to accept the defence argument that the protected witnesses were unreliable, observing that their credibility could only be tested during trial.

“Trustworthiness of a witness can only be tested during trial, especially when these witnesses are subjected to cross-examination. At the stage of framing of charges, the Court has to accept the statements on the face of it,” the order said.

Dealing with the prosecution’s claims against the PFI, the court recorded that the organisation was alleged to have recruited and radicalised Muslim youth, conducted weapons-training camps across several states, raised funds through various channels, and attempted to procure firearms.

The order further noted the prosecution case that the conspiracy involved establishing an Islamic Caliphate by 2047 and included allegations relating to recruitment, radicalisation, weapons training, funding and support to ISIS by some of the accused.

In Abubacker’s case, the court referred to statements of protected witnesses and documentary material relied upon by the NIA, including allegations relating to recruitment, weapons training and expansion of the organisation.

Holding that the material disclosed grave suspicion against him, the court said: “Accordingly grave suspicion is made out against A-6 (Abubacker).”

The court ordered that Abubacker be charged for offences punishable under Sections 13, 17, 18, 18A and 18B of the UAPA and Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 153A of the IPC.

The order similarly found sufficient material to frame charges against PFI chairman O.M.A. Salam, vice chairman E.M. Abdul Rahiman, general secretary Anis Ahmed and several other senior functionaries under various provisions of the UAPA and IPC.

The PFI itself has also been arrayed as an accused in the case.

The PFI was banned by the Union government under the UAPA in September 2022. Abubacker, who was arrested by the NIA on September 22, 2022, has been in judicial custody since October 6, 2022.

In January last year, the Supreme Court had declined to grant him medical bail after examining reports submitted by a panel of doctors from AIIMS Delhi.

A Bench headed by Justice M.M. Sundresh had said it was not inclined to release him on medical grounds at that stage, while granting him liberty to seek relief before the trial court if his condition worsened. The top court had also rejected his alternative plea seeking house arrest.

–IANS

pds/pgh