18 Years Later, Eight Men Accused Of SIMI Links Acquitted By Nagpur Court
After nearly two decades of trial, a Nagpur court has acquitted eight men who were accused of having links with the banned organisation Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) on Friday.
The court found no evidence to prove their involvement in unlawful activities and cleared them of all charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The case dates back to 2006, when the eight men, most of whom were Nagpur residents in their early 30s at the time, were booked under Sections 10 and 13 of the UAPA.
The police had alleged that they were conducting meetings, distributing pamphlets, and spreading propaganda related to SIMI, which was declared an unlawful organisation by the Government of India.
Also Read |Student Activist Sharjeel Imam Set To Contest Bihar Assembly Polls
The accused were identified as: Shakil Warsi, Shakir Ahmed Nasir Ahmed, Mohammad Rehan Atullakhan, Jiyaur Rahman, Maheboob Khan, Wakar Baig, Yusuf Baig, Imtiyaj Ahmed, Nisar Ahmed, Mohammad Abrar Arif Mohammad Kashim, and Sheikh Ahmad Sheikh.
They were granted bail during the long pendency of the trial, but continued to live under the shadow of the case for 18 years.
On August 13, Judicial Magistrate A. K. Bankar delivered the verdict, observing that the prosecution failed to present any reliable evidence against the accused. The court made several key points in its judgment.
There is no evidence of any acts or participation in meetings, communication, propaganda, or support financially or otherwise on the part of the accused,” the order stated.
The court emphasised that mere possession of literature or documents allegedly linked to an unlawful association does not establish guilt unless there is proof of active intent or participation.
Also Read | Four Years Of Blatant Injustice: Sharjeel Imam ‘The Beacon Of Resilience’
While the police claimed that incriminating material was recovered from the accused and that independent witnesses were aware of their activities, none of these claims stood up in court. Independent witnesses did not support the prosecution’s case.
The police also stated that they had received confidential information regarding the accused men’s involvement with SIMI. However, they could not produce any official record to prove that such information was received or investigated further. Even the allegation that some of the accused had sheltered one individual from arrest was not substantiated.
Throughout the trial, the defence consistently maintained that the men were falsely implicated and that no independent evidence existed to support the charges. They argued that the case relied entirely on unverified police claims and weak testimony.
“If the entire prosecution witnesses’ testimonies are perused, none of the witnesses has made a whisper about such allegations or facts constituting the offence,” the court stated.
