Brief Facts
The case involves Parvez Vaid and Faiz Bhiwandiwala, who were booked for alleged links with the D-Company (underworld gangster Dawood Ibrahim's criminal organization) and for their involvement in a drugs seizure case. The prosecution's evidence included Section 164 statements from witnesses referring to Vaid as a member of the D-Company and a financial transaction of Rs 25,000 made by Vaid to an individual associated with Dawood. A raid conducted in August 2022 resulted in the seizure of two cell phones from Vaid's residence. Bhiwandiwala was found with 600 grams of ganja during the raids.

Citation: Criminal Appeal No. 1138 of 2023, Bombay High Court,
Order dated July 11, 2023.
Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court.
Bench: Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande.

Issues:

• Whether the association with Dawood Ibrahim's D-Company constitutes membership in a terrorist organization under Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
• Whether the quantity of drugs seized from Bhiwandiwala mandates his incarceration under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act.
• The implications of Dawood Ibrahim's designation as a terrorist in his individual capacity under the Fourth Schedule of the UAPA.

Statutes Involved:

• Section 20, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organization.
• Fourth Schedule, UAPA – Lists individuals and entities designated as terrorists by the Central Government.
• Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code – Pertains to the recording of statements by the police.
• Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, 1985 – Governs the regulation and control of operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances.

Judgment of the Court
The Bombay High Court, in its order dated July 11, 2023, addressed the following key points:

The court held that Section 20 of the UAPA, which prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organization, is not applicable to associations with Dawood Ibrahim or the D-Company in the context of the present case. This is due to Dawood Ibrahim being declared a terrorist in his individual capacity, as per the amendment to the Fourth Schedule of the UAPA on September 4, 2019. Consequently, mere association with him or his gang does not attract the provisions under Section 20.

The court noted that the Section 164 statements, which identified Vaid as a member of the D-Company, did not, prima facie, justify the application of Section 20 of UAPA. The evidence was insufficient to establish Vaid's membership in a terrorist organization.

Regarding Bhiwandiwala, who was found with 600 grams of ganja, the court determined that this quantity did not qualify as a commercial or intermediate quantity as defined under the NDPS Act. Therefore, it did not necessitate incarceration. The court also considered the minor involvement in drug-related activities, such as sharing pictures of drugs, insufficient to warrant severe punitive measures.

The bench granted bail to both Vaid and Bhiwandiwala. Vaid's bail was granted considering the lack of substantial evidence linking him to terrorist activities, while Bhiwandiwala's bail was granted due to the small quantity of drugs and the lack of a substantial case against him under the NDPS Act. The bail was set with surety conditions of Rs 50,000 each.

Conclusion
The court's decision reflects a nuanced interpretation of the UAPA, particularly concerning the designation of individuals as terrorists and the implications for those associated with them. By distinguishing between individual and organizational designations, the court upholds a principle of specificity in applying anti-terrorism laws. Furthermore, the decision to grant bail based on the quantity of drugs and the nature of the evidence demonstrates a balanced approach to criminal justice, avoiding undue penalization in cases with insufficient evidence or minimal involvement.

The Bombay High Court's judgment in Parvez Vaid vs. State of Maharashtra clarifies the application of Section 20 of the UAPA in light of the individual designation of Dawood Ibrahim as a terrorist. The court's careful consideration of the evidence, particularly regarding the Section 164 statements and drug quantities, underscores the importance of precise and contextually appropriate application of criminal laws. The decision to grant bail to both accused, given the circumstances and available evidence, aligns with principles of justice and fairness in criminal adjudication.