APCR leaders welcome the acquittal of Jamsheed Paul and Parvaiz Lone, but highlight lost years in prison
NEW DELHI — Highlighting major procedural lapses in the prosecution’s case, the Patiala House Court has acquitted Jamsheed Zahoor Paul and Parvaiz Rashid Lone of all charges linked with their association with the ISIS. In his verdict delivered on Thursday, Additional Sessions Judge Amit Bansal ruled that there was no credible evidence to support the charges against the two men, incarcerated for eight years under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Arms Act.
The court also said there was a “great deal of doubt” about the recovery of arms and ammunition in the manner claimed by the Delhi Police’s Special Cell.
The court noted that the seizure memos, site plans, and related documents submitted by the police bore FIR numbers but failed to clarify whether the FIR was registered before or after the alleged recovery of weapons and ammunition.
Paul and Lone were arrested near Delhi’s Red Fort on 7 September 2018 on allegations of links to ISIS. It was also claimed that the two were conspiring to acquire weapons for terrorist purposes. Over the years, the legal proceedings revealed serious inconsistencies in the investigation, with charges formally framed only in April 2022. The Delhi High Court denied them bail as late as 2024, extending their prolonged incarceration.
The Patiala House Court said on Thursday, “The inclusion of the FIR number in these documents creates serious doubts about the authenticity of the alleged seizure. Whether the FIR was registered prior to the recovery or its number added later, both scenarios cast significant uncertainty on the prosecution’s claims.”
The court also raised concerns about the handling of mobile phones seized from the accused, which were kept in police custody for nearly two months without being sealed and sent for forensic analysis. This delay, the judge noted, made any data retrieved, including BBM chat screenshots allegedly linking the accused to ISIS, unreliable.
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove that Paul and Lone were members of ISIS, engaged in terrorist activities, or were involved in weapons procurement. Consequently, the accused were acquitted of all charges under Sections 18 and 20 of UAPA and Section 25 of the Arms Act.
The legal team of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights (APCR), which represented the accused throughout the trial, emphasised that while the verdict was a victory, the long years spent in custody had already caused irreparable harm.
Nadeem Khan, National Secretary of the APCR, said, “Today, the burden of being labelled a ‘terrorist’ is lifted, but eight years of their lives are gone. This is not just a legal win but a stark reminder of how easily lives are wrecked by fabricated allegations.”
Malik Motasim, General Secretary of the APCR, stressed that the case reflects a broader pattern of misuse of stringent laws. “Extraordinary laws like the UAPA are being used to bypass the need for solid evidence. Our team stood by these men when the world had already judged them, and today’s verdict proves why due process cannot be ignored,” he said.
The acquittal raises serious concerns about investigative overreach in cases involving anti-terror legislation. It underscores how individuals can remain imprisoned for years without substantial evidence and why stricter safeguards are essential. Legal experts suggest that this verdict will set an important precedent, reaffirming that courts must meticulously scrutinise evidence even in cases with significant political and social weight, a report in The Observer Post said on Friday.
For APCR, this case highlights its ongoing mission to support individuals whose voices are often unheard. The organisation has consistently stood by those fighting to prove their innocence, particularly in high-profile cases where public opinion may lean heavily against the accused.
“The acquittal is a reaffirmation of the principle that no individual should remain imprisoned without credible evidence. It reinforces the importance of due process and judicial oversight, especially in cases under anti-terror laws,” APCR noted in a statement.
