The Delhi High Court recently denied the request of a convict, found guilty of association with the terrorist organization ISIS. To serve his sentences from two separate cases simultaneously instead of consecutively. Justice Swarn Kanta Sharma noted that the convict, Mohsin Ibrahim Syed, pleaded guilty to terrorism. The authorities charged him under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Syed had admitted to planning terrorist attacks during the Kumbh Mela in Haridwar and conspiring to assassinate a leader of the Hindu Mahasabha, with the aim of disrupting communal harmony in the country. Since the trial court had already shown leniency during sentencing, the High Court determined that granting further leniency by allowing concurrent sentences from Mumbai and Delhi trial courts would not be appropriate.
Trial courts in Mumbai and Delhi convicted Syed of various offenses under the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Mumbai court found him guilty of promoting ISIS activities, recruiting youths as fidayeen, and plotting to assassinate Hindu Mahasabha leader Kamlesh Tiwari, sentencing him to eight years in prison.
The Delhi trial court sentenced him to seven years in prison for conspiring and raising funds to attack Haridwar. Which happened during the Ardh Kumbh Mela. Syed pleaded guilty in both cases. After reviewing the matter, Justice Sharma observed that neither the Mumbai nor the Delhi trial court imposed the maximum penalty of life imprisonment for Syed’s offenses.
Consequently, if both sentences were to run concurrently, he would only serve eight years in prison. Justice Sharma concluded that serving the sentences totaling 15 years concurrently would not constitute injustice.
Also Read: Three Laborers Died Due To Electrocution In Sewer Tank
