New Delhi, Feb 17 : The Delhi High Court on Friday sought a response from the NIA on a plea by a convicted terrorist praying to make two sentences – one by Special Court in Greater Mumbai and the second by Delhi’s Patiala House Court – run concurrent.
Mohsin Ibrahim Sayyed was convicted in January 2022 in the Malvani ISIS case on charges of trying to radicalise Muslim youths to join the Islamic State terror group in India and by the Patiala House Court last year in June for conspiracy to perform a terror strike during the Ardh Kumbh Mela at Haridwar.
He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment and seven years imprisonment by the Greater Mumbai court and Delhi court, respectively.
A single-judge bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani issued a notice, returnable in six weeks to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on Sayyed’s petition.
Sayyed’s counsel informed the court that he is not challenging the petitioner’s conviction and sentence by the Delhi court, but that his conviction and sentence of imprisonment by the Greater Mumbai was not brought to the notice of the Delhi court and hence a direction to run the two sentences together should be passed by this court.
“I am not impugning the special court’s order. The fact of my previous conviction was not placed before the special court. I am seeking the High Court to invoke its power under Section 226 to do that which is not prohibited under the NIA Act. I am not challenging the mode it should be given in,” counsel said.
However, NIA’s counsel opposed the plea and argued that the petition is not maintainable.
The plea states that Sayyed, who voluntarily pleaded guilty with the intention of reforming himself, was an auto-rickshaw driver before his arrest and has to support his aged parents, wife, and two minor children.
“The petitioner is a young, poor, and illiterate man who, upon realising the error of his ways as a result of being misguided; voluntarily plead guilty to the charges framed against him, with the intention of reforming himself, attaining education, and becoming a productive member of society,” his plea said.
It also said that courts ought to not ignore a circumstance where a convict is already serving a sentence of imprisonment, and should try to ensure that the totality of the sentences is correct, and argued that “a court can, even when substantive sentences of imprisonment have been imposed by courts in different trials/convictions, direct the concurrent running of such separate sentence”.
