Introduction:
The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling, granted bail to Shaikh Sadique Isaq Qureshi, a member of the Popular Front of India (PFI), arrested under allegations of being part of a conspiracy to establish an Islamic State in India by 2047. The division bench of Justices Sarang Kotwal and Shriram Modak observed that merely giving speeches on legal awareness and advising members on their rights when approached by the police cannot be deemed anti-national activity. The court emphasized that there was no direct evidence linking Qureshi to the ‘Roadmap for Regaining Glory of Islam in India by 2047’ found in the possession of his co-accused. While the prosecution presented serious allegations against other accused persons, the court found no substantive proof implicating Qureshi in any anti-national conspiracy, leading to his release on bail.
Arguments:
The prosecution argued that Qureshi was closely associated with other PFI members who were allegedly working towards establishing an Islamic State by 2047. They presented a document titled ‘Roadmap for Regaining Glory of Islam in India by 2047,’ found in the possession of a co-accused, which outlined a four-stage plan involving mass recruitment, weapon training, infiltration of state institutions, and eventual power seizure. The state contended that Qureshi’s legal awareness sessions were part of this larger conspiracy, where he educated PFI members about legal loopholes to evade law enforcement. Further, they claimed that PFI’s activities aimed at uniting Muslims under a single ideological umbrella to propagate radical teachings and ultimately overthrow the Constitution of India. The prosecution also highlighted witness statements alleging that Qureshi was frequently seen with key members of the group and was involved in planning events intended to radicalize and recruit vulnerable individuals.
On the other hand, the defense, led by Senior Advocate Mihir Desai, contended that Qureshi’s activities were entirely legal and aimed at informing individuals about their constitutional rights. They argued that the prosecution had failed to establish any direct involvement of Qureshi in the alleged conspiracy. The defense pointed out that Qureshi had not been found in possession of the ‘Roadmap’ document, nor was there any evidence of him inciting violence or propagating extremist ideologies. Witnesses merely stated that Qureshi conducted lectures on democratic principles, the role of courts, media, and administration in a democratic setup, which cannot be criminalized. They further contended that associating with PFI members alone does not imply participation in illegal activities, and Qureshi’s arrest was a case of guilt by association rather than concrete evidence-based prosecution.
Court’s Judgment:
The High Court, after evaluating the arguments and the evidence presented, concluded that the material against Qureshi was insufficient to justify his continued detention. The court emphasized that mere association with individuals who may be involved in unlawful activities does not automatically establish culpability. The court noted that while the prosecution had laid out a serious case against other accused individuals, implicating them in acts of recruitment, physical training, and possession of incriminating material, there was no substantial evidence that Qureshi was actively involved in these activities. The judges remarked that speeches on legal awareness and citizens’ rights are protected activities under the Constitution and cannot be criminalized unless they are directly linked to unlawful objectives. Furthermore, the court stated that in cases where a person’s alleged involvement in a conspiracy is based on indirect inferences rather than direct evidence, leniency should be granted, especially at the bail stage. The High Court thus ordered Qureshi’s release, stating that the question of his alleged involvement in a broader conspiracy would be determined at trial.