Introduction:

The Delhi High Court, in the case of Zahoor Ahmad Peer v. NIA, addressed the gravity of harbouring terrorists under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The Court, comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, held that providing shelter and assistance to terrorists is not an innocent act but an enabler of unlawful activities. The case revolved around the appellant, Zahoor Ahmad Peer, who was accused of harbouring a terrorist associated with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The appeal challenged the trial court’s rejection of his bail application, and the High Court dismissed the appeal, underscoring the threat posed by providing safe havens to terrorists.

Arguments:

The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Kartik Venu and Mr. R. Jude Rohit, contended that Peer had provided food and shelter under duress and was not voluntarily aiding a terrorist. They argued that there was no direct evidence proving his intention to support terrorist activities, and his actions were driven by coercion rather than complicity. The defense stressed that Peer was an ordinary villager who could not have reasonably refused assistance under threat. On the other hand, the respondent, represented by Ms. Shilpa Singh (SPP) with Ms. Priyam Agarwal, argued that harbouring a terrorist, regardless of coercion, constitutes a grave offense under UAPA. The prosecution presented evidence showing Peer’s connection with Bahadur Ali, a convicted terrorist who had infiltrated India with arms and ammunition. The NIA relied on Ali’s statement, which confirmed that Peer had knowingly provided him shelter and sustenance.

Court’s Judgement:

The Delhi High Court dismissed Peer’s appeal, emphasizing that harbouring terrorists endangers national security by offering them a veil of secrecy and safe havens to operate. The Court noted that even if Peer’s act was under coercion, it does not absolve him of liability under UAPA, as such acts contribute to legitimizing terrorist activities. The Bench held that the evidence on record sufficiently established Peer’s role in assisting Ali, who was convicted under multiple laws, including the UAPA, Explosives Act, Arms Act, Foreigners Act, and Wireless Act. The Court further observed that it was immaterial at this stage whether Peer acted voluntarily or under duress, as the trial was yet to conclude. However, acknowledging the prolonged trial, the Court directed the trial court to expedite proceedings and complete them within four months. Additionally, it granted Peer the liberty to reapply for bail if the trial was not concluded within six months.