HC refuses to transfer terror case against 2 PFI members to CBI

The investigation has also been concluded by the ATS, it said.The bench comprising justices D K Upadhyay and Ajai Kumar Srivastava disapproved of the use of the term of South Terror on a state portal in reference to the case but refused to agree that it amounted to prejudice and biased intention of the state authorities against the petitioner.

The Allahabad High Court has declined to hand over to the CBI the case of two Popular Front of India (PFI) members from Kerala who were arrested by the Uttar Pradesh Anti Terrorist Squad (ATS) here in February for allegedly plotting terror attacks.

The UP ATS had registered a case against Anshad Badarudheen and Firoj KC on February 16 at Lucknow under various sections of IPC, Arms Act, Explosive Substances Act 1908, and Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

''The petitioner has been unable to show that the power of investigation has been exercised by the Investigating Officer of ATS in a mala-fide manner,'' the Lucknow bench of the high court ruled while rejecting the plea filed by Anshad through his brother Azhar to transfer the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation. The bench quoted an apex court verdict saying, ''The decision to investigate or the decision on the agency which should investigate, does not attract the principle of natural justice. The accused cannot have a say in who should investigate the offence he is charged with.'' ''It is also not found to be a case of abuse of power and non-compliance by the Investigating Agency of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. The investigation has also been concluded by the ATS,'' it said.

The bench comprising justices D K Upadhyay and Ajai Kumar Srivastava disapproved of the use of the term of 'South Terror' on a state portal in reference to the case but refused to agree that it amounted to prejudice and biased intention of the state authorities against the petitioner. ''Use of such term would not per-se import element of malice or bias towards the petitioner. ''However, we view this fact with profound concern and disapprove use of such term,'' it said. Arguing for the petitioner, advocates Mohd Tahir and Mohd SM Alavi had alleged that the duo was picked from Bihar and then falsely shown as arrested from Lucknow. It was also argued that after the registration of FIR, the central government was required to pass an order regarding the investigation, but in the present case, there was no such order passed, and hence the charge sheet filed by ATS was without jurisdiction and liable to be rejected. However, the bench rejected the petitioner's contention while accepting the argument of additional government advocate Shiv Nath Tilahri.

''In the instant case, admittedly, the Central Government has not issued any direction under Section 6 (4) or Section 6 (5) of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act to get the Scheduled Offences investigated by the Agency, therefore, the authority and power of the State Government to investigate and prosecute any Scheduled Offence remains unaffected,'' the court The bench also did not agree to the plea of the petitioner that the special ATS court illegally took cognisance of the matter.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)