The Bombay High Court recently made a significant ruling stating that Dawood Ibrahim, an underworld gangster, has been individually declared a terrorist by the Central Government. Consequently, any affiliation with him or his organization, the D-Company, does not automatically constitute membership in a terrorist organization under section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande of a division bench granted bail to two individuals accused of links with the D-Company and involvement in a drug seizure case. They emphasized that Dawood was designated a terrorist under UAPA’s fourth schedule through a government notification on September 4, 2019.

According to the prosecution, witnesses testified in section 164 statements that they knew one of the applicants, Vaid, as a member of D-Company. The prosecution also cited a financial transaction of Rs 25,000 between Vaid and an individual closely associated with Dawood.

In another instance, Faiz Bhiwandiwala was arrested by the Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) after 600 grams of ganja were found in his possession during raids conducted based on confidential information. However, the court noted that there was insufficient evidence to establish Bhiwandiwala’s membership in D-Company. He was charged under the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (NDPS) Act, and the court highlighted that the small quantity of drugs found did not warrant his detention. Among other arguments, the prosecution pointed out that Bhiwandiwala and Vaid shared drug-related photos and used the “dark net” for drug transactions via an app named “Wicker Me.”

Since admittedly, the charge-sheet reveal that what is seized from accused no.2 (Bhiwandiwala) is 600 gms of ganja, which definitely do not deserve his incarceration, as the quantity is neither commercial nor intermediate, but is a small quantity, and bar for releasing him on bail under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, shall not come in its way. Mere sharing of the pictures of Narcotics or prohibited substance definitely do not attract the provisions of the NDPS Act,” the bench observed

Case Details:

Parvez Vaid vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Appeal 1138 of 2023).