HC rejects early release plea of man convicted in 2002 terror conspiracy case

The Delhi High Court has refused to grant premature release to a man convicted for life in 2002 for his role in a “terrorist conspiracy” to abduct four foreign nationals, a plot tied to networks once associated with Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, one of the principal conspirators who was released in 1999 following the hijacking of Indian Airlines Flight IC-814.

Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed the plea filed by Nasir Mohd Sodozey, alias Aftaab Ahmed, who challenged a June 30, 2023, order of the Sentence Review Board (SRB) turning down his request for release. Sodozey argued that he had served more than 26 years, crossing the 25-year limit under the Delhi Government’s 2004 remission policy, and, therefore, deserved to be freed.

The police opposed the plea citing his past association with Sheikh, stressing that his release could rekindle hostile networks. The court agreed that the nature of the crime, its impact on India’s sovereignty and continuing security concerns outweighed his plea.

“The act of abducting foreign nationals was calculated to project a threat against the sovereignty of India, with international ramifications. Such an act not only undermined domestic security, but also tarnished India’s standing before the world community. Against this backdrop, the balance tilts decisively in favour of societal and national security concerns,” the court observed.

Sodozey was convicted in 2002 under Sections 121A, 122 and 124A of the IPC, Sections 3(1) and 3(5) of the TADA Act and Section 14 of the Foreigners Act. He was sentenced to death, but in 2003 the Supreme Court commuted his sentence to life imprisonment.

Rejecting his claim that long incarceration automatically entitled him to release, the court held that at best a life convict acquires the right to consideration under remission policies, not freedom as a matter of right. “In view of the foregoing discussion, this court is of the opinion that, despite the long incarceration undergone by the petitioner, the nature of the offence, its broader societal impact and the legitimate concerns of national security remain overriding considerations,” it said.

The court described the offence as one of the “gravest order” since it was not for private gain, but a calculated attempt to coerce the sovereign Government of India on behalf of militant outfit Harqat-ul-Ansar. “The broader objective, employing fear and intimidation to secure political ends, marks this case apart from conventional offences, placing it in a category of exceptional gravity,” it added.

Noting his association with Sheikh, Justice Narula said the IC-814 hijack and the release of Sheikh under duress stood as a stark reminder of the far-reaching consequences of the conspiracy in which Sodozey was involved.

The court concluded that the “welfare of society”, expressly recognised in the remission policy, encompasses the nature of the offence, its potential impact on public order and national security, and the confidence of the community at large, all of which weighed heavily against granting relief.