Oppression faced by the weaker sections of society may be influencing a number of persons towards Maoist philosophy, according to the Kochi Special Court of the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Granting bail to Alan Shuhaib and Thaha Fazal arrested under the Unlawful (Activities) Prevention Act (UAPA) in Kozhikode, Special Judge Anil K. Bhaskar noted that it was impossible to hold all such persons as members of the terrorist organisation.
While granting bail, the court warned the accused that the “chance offered by the court for the reformation shall not be mistaken as an opportunity to fasten their bond with banned terrorist organisation and to be part of it.”
Though the prosecution, the court noted, was “able to establish that the accused had associated with and supported CPI(Maoist) organisation, it is doubtful whether the prosecution has made out a prima facie case regarding their affiliation and support to the banned organisation with the intent to encourage, promote or facilitate the commission of terrorist organisations.”
There is no allegation that the accused conspired to do any specific terrorist act. There is no evidence to prove that Shuhaib had frequently met Usman, the third accused, and they had deliberated and discussed the organisational matters of the banned outfit, the judge noted.
On the allegation that Usman distributed notices supporting CPI(Maoist), the court noted that the contents of the notice suggested that he solicited the support of the public to the Maoist organisation who were fighting to establish a neo-democratic India. There was nothing in the notices to instigate terror or to entice violence to achieve the objective, the order said.
The court viewed the shouting of slogans by Fasal in support of Maoism and Naxabari as his inclination towards Maoist ideology and said it cannot be be construed as an indication that he stepped into the path of violence to achieve his objectives.
The books and video clips found in the possession of the accused were not prohibited or banned items and hence cannot be considered to prove the culpability of the accused in promoting terrorist activity, the court noted.
