High Court rejects plea of juvenility holding that the offences alleged were of a continuing nature and had persisted beyond the appellant attaining majority
Faizan Ansari Vs UOI
Facts
The present case arose from a criminal appeal filed by Faizan Ansari under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging an order of the Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi. By the impugned order, the Special Court rejected the application of the appellant seeking a declaration of juvenility under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
The prosecution case originates from intelligence inputs received by the Central Government alleging that the appellant was an active member and supporter of the terrorist organization ISIS. It was alleged that Faizan Ansari, while residing in Jharkhand and Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh, was involved in propagating ISIS ideology through social media platforms such as Telegram, Instagram, and YouTube. He allegedly administered multiple ISIS-aligned cyber groups, disseminated radical propaganda including magazines like “Voice of Hind” and “Voice of Khorasan,” and attempted to radicalize and recruit impressionable youth for terrorist activities in India.
The investigation further revealed that the appellant employed advanced cyber-security techniques such as VPNs, TOR browsers, and virtual numbers to evade law enforcement agencies. He was also allegedly in contact with foreign-based ISIS handlers and contemplated migration to a foreign ISIS conflict zone after completing his activities in India. Based on these allegations, offences were registered under Sections 120B, 153A, and 505 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 18, 20, 38, and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The National Investigation Agency took over the investigation pursuant to directions of the Central Government. The appellant was arrested in 2023, charge-sheeted, and put on trial. During the pendency of trial, after examination of several prosecution witnesses, the appellant filed an application claiming that he was a juvenile at the time of commission of the alleged offences. He relied on his matriculation certificate showing his date of birth as 10 July 2004 and argued that the alleged criminal activities commenced in late 2021 or early 2022, when he was below eighteen years of age.
The Special Judge rejected the plea for juvenility, holding that the offences alleged were of a continuing nature and had persisted beyond the appellant attaining majority. The present appeal was filed before the High Court against the above order.
Legal Issues
The legal issue before the High Court was whether the appellant could be declared a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, having regard to the alleged date of commencement of criminal activities and the continuing nature of the offences?
Legal Reasoning and Holding
The Court began by reiterating the settled legal position that, ordinarily, the age of an accused for the purpose of determining juvenility is to be reckoned on the date of commission of the offence, and not the date of arrest or trial. In this regard, the Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand and subsequent reaffirmation in Vimal Chadha v. Vikas Choudhary.
However, the Court emphasized that criminal law recognizes the concept of continuing offences. Relying on Section 472 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed that in cases of continuing offences, the offence persists so long as the unlawful acts continue, and legal consequences attach throughout the duration of such conduct. The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s exposition in State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi to distinguish between offences committed once and for all and those susceptible to continuance.
Applying these principles to the facts, the Court examined the charge-sheet and investigative material in detail. It noted that the appellant’s involvement in propagating ISIS ideology, administering online groups, sharing radical material, maintaining contact with foreign handlers, and possessing incriminating digital content extended well into 2022 and 2023, after he had attained the age of majority on 10 July 2022. Evidence such as seized devices, online communications, and witness statements demonstrated active participation in unlawful activities beyond the age of eighteen.
The Court further observed that the nature of the offences alleged such as conspiracy, radicalization, and support to a proscribed terrorist organization fell within the category of heinous offences under the Juvenile Justice Act. Referring to Dr. Subramanian Swamy v. Raju, the Court held that while juvenile justice legislation is welfare-oriented, its protective framework must be applied with caution in cases involving grave threats to national security, so as to prevent misuse.
In view of the continuing nature of the alleged offences and the appellant’s sustained involvement after attaining majority, the Court concluded that the plea of juvenility was untenable. Thus, the High Court held that the alleged criminal acts constituted continuing offences that extended beyond the appellant’s attainment of majority. Consequently, the appellant was not entitled to be declared a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015.
