A division bench of Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Manjusha Deshpande reasoned that since Ibrahim has been designated a terrorist only in his “individual capacity”, it would not be sufficient to invoke Section 20 on the ground that a person due to such association belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang.
The Court explained that UAPA has different provisions on the activities of an individual and the activities of a terrorist gang or terrorist organisation.
“Section 20 prescribes punishment for being a member of a terrorist gang or organisation. In the instant case, the material on which reliance is placed, is in the form of Section 164 statement, referring to Parvez Vaid (petitioner) as a Member of D-gang. This, in our view, prima facie, would not attract the offence under section 20, as by the amendment in Schedule IV, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, has been declared as a terrorist in individual capacity, and therefore, any association with him on the pretext that a person belongs to D-gang/Dawood gang will not attract the provisions of Section 20,” the Court observed.
Source: Barandbench
