Delhi HC dismisses early release plea of terror convict serving life term for conspiracy to abduct foreigners

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea for early release from prison by a man convicted for involvement in a terror conspiracy of kidnapping four foreign nationals to pressure the government to release jailed militants, saying his offence was of "gravest order" and striking at the security of the State.

The high court said there was no infirmity in the June 30, 2023, decision of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) to reject lifer Nasir Mohd Sodozey alias Aftaab Ahmed's plea seeking an early release from jail on the ground that he has undergone incarceration for over 26 years.

The court said prolonged incarceration is a relevant factor and the reviewing authority must weigh it, but it cannot prevail over the larger interests of society where the underlying crime was designed to destabilise the State and spread fear among its citizens and international visitors.

Sodozey was convicted in 2002 under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act and the Foreigners Act. The offence was executed under the banner of the proscribed terrorist organisation, Harqat-ul-Ansar. He was given the death penalty, which was commuted to a life term by the Supreme Court in 2003.

The high court said the offence for which Sodozey was convicted is of the "gravest order" and the act was calculated, deliberate and carried out as part of a terrorist conspiracy to subvert the authority of the State and coerce governmental policy by unlawful means.

"The petitioner, in concert with his co-conspirators, abducted and held captive four foreign nationals, not for private gain or personal animosity, but with the intent of compelling the sovereign Government of India to yield to the demands of a militant organisation."

"Such conduct is not merely an ordinary crime but an attack upon the very fabric of civil order, striking at the rule of law and the security of the State. The broader objective, employing fear and intimidation to secure political ends, marks this case apart from conventional offences, placing it in a category of exceptional gravity," Justice Sanjeev Narula said in a judgment passed on August 21.

The convict argued that the maximum prescribed term of incarceration, inclusive of remissions, is capped at 25 years and thus, having already completed more than two decades of incarceration, he satisfied the threshold under the 2004 policy of the Delhi Government and ought to have been positively considered for release.

It was submitted that he had already crossed the outer limit, having undergone incarceration for over 26 years and his continued detention was contrary to the mandate of the 2004 policy.

The high court, however, said the submission that completion of 25 years of incarceration entitled the man to release was "misconceived". The 2004 policy does not create a vested right to release upon completion of 25 years and it merely conferred eligibility for consideration.

The police opposed the plea, citing the convict's past association with Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, one of the principal conspirators who was subsequently released in 1999 following the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC-814.

The high court said the release of Sheikh, under extreme duress and in exchange for hostages, stood as a reminder of the far-reaching consequences of the conspiracy in which the petitioner was involved.

"This association is not a matter of conjecture but part of the judicial record, and it highlights the entrenched connections of the petitioner with networks that have posed serious threats to national security.

"Against such a backdrop, the concerns raised by the State regarding the risks associated with the petitioner's release cannot be treated as fanciful or speculative, but must be weighed as part of the larger context of the case," it said.

It said the act of abducting foreign nationals was calculated to project a threat against the sovereignty of India, with international ramifications.

Such an act not only undermined domestic security but also tarnished India's standing before the world community. Against this backdrop, the balance tilts decisively in favour of societal and national security concerns, it said.

"This court is of the opinion that, despite the long incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence, its broader societal impact, and the legitimate concerns of national security remain overriding considerations.

"The factor of 'welfare of society', expressly recognised in the remission policy, is of wide amplitude and encompasses considerations such as the nature of the offence, its potential impact on public order and national security, and the confidence of the community at large. Accordingly, no infirmity is found in the SRB's rejection of the petitioner's case," the court said.

While dismissing the petition, the court clarified that it was open to the competent authorities to place the petitioner's case before the SRB for future consideration in accordance with law.