Judicial Precedents On Forged Extremism Funding Permits
1. NIA vs. Farid Nanabhai Shaikh (Ahmedabad, 2023)
Facts:
The accused allegedly prepared forged identity documents, such as Aadhaar and PAN cards, for associates linked to a terrorist group.
The forged documents were intended to help these associates open bank accounts, move freely, and carry out operations without detection.
Court’s Reasoning and Outcome:
The court examined whether the accused knew that these documents would be used for terror-related activities.
It found insufficient evidence linking the accused directly to terror financing.
The accused was granted bail; however, the court noted that mere possession or preparation of forged documents can still attract charges under IPC for forgery and cheating.
Legal Principle:
Intent and knowledge are crucial in proving a connection between forgery and terror financing.
Not all allegations of forgery automatically lead to UAPA charges.
2. Masasasong Ao & Others vs. NIA (2023)
Facts:
The accused allegedly collected funds for a banned insurgent group (NSCN (IM)) via extortion and attempted to conceal the funds through forged land deals and bank manipulations.
Forged land deeds were used to launder the money and transfer it to terrorist cadres.
Court’s Reasoning and Outcome:
Charges were framed under IPC sections 465, 467 (forgery), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and UAPA sections related to supporting terrorist organizations.
Bail applications were rejected because of the seriousness of using forged documents in terror financing.
Legal Principle:
Courts treat forged documents as integral to terror-financing schemes.
Forgery facilitating extremist activity attracts both criminal and anti-terror statutes.
3. Conviction of Bangladeshi Nationals for Fake Documents (2018–2023)
Facts:
Three Bangladeshi nationals illegally entered India and were found with forged identity documents.
They were allegedly linked to a front organization of a proscribed terrorist group.
Court’s Reasoning and Outcome:
Convicted under IPC for forgery and false identity, UAPA for supporting terrorist activity, and the Foreigners Act for illegal entry.
Sentenced to five years imprisonment with fines.
Legal Principle:
Forged identity documents used in support of extremist activities constitute a serious offence.
Combination of IPC and anti-terror statutes can secure convictions.
4. Discharge of Accused Due to Insufficient Evidence (2022)
Facts:
NIA investigated a case involving alleged terror financing via hawala and forged documents (bank papers, fake IDs).
Four accused were alleged to have helped in fund transfers using forged documents.
Court’s Reasoning and Outcome:
The court discharged four accused, stating there was no evidence that forged documents were actually used to transfer funds to terrorist groups.
Mere possession or creation of forged documents without direct use in terror financing is insufficient for UAPA charges.
Legal Principle:
Courts require concrete proof of use of forged documents in actual terror-financing transactions.
Allegations alone are not enough for conviction under anti-terror laws.
5. Doctrine on Forgery from K. Mohammed Ali vs. Chinnamma K.M. (2024)
Facts:
While not directly a terror case, this judgment clarified the definition of “forgery” under IPC.
Forgery involves making a false document with intent to cause damage, support a claim, or commit fraud.
Relevance to Terror Financing:
In terror-financing cases, courts must establish that the accused actually created or used a false document to facilitate extremist activities.
This threshold explains why many alleged cases of forgery in terror financing do not lead to convictions if evidence is weak.
Legal Principle:
The combination of intent, actual creation/use of false documents, and facilitation of crime is necessary to sustain charges.
Key Takeaways from These Cases
Forgery is serious, but intent matters: Courts distinguish between mere preparation of forged documents and actual use in extremist financing.
Terror-financing + forgery is prosecuted jointly: IPC forgery sections (465, 467, 471) are combined with UAPA offences.
Formal permits are rare: Most terror groups do not have legal funding permits; forged documents usually involve IDs, land, or banking papers.
Evidence threshold is high: Conviction requires proof that forged documents were actively used to support extremist activities.
Bail is generally denied when risk is high: Courts often reject bail in cases where forged documents are integral to a terror-financing conspiracy.
RELATED Blog
{!! (isset($postDetail['review_mapping']) && count($postDetail['review_mapping']) > 0 ? count($postDetail['review_mapping']) : 0) }} comments