ORDER : A.Y. KOGJE, J. 1. This application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed for suspension of sentence and/or grant of bail to the applicant pending the appeal. 2. The applicant is original accused No.2 in Sessions Case No.47 of 2018 in which the applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The detail of which in tabular from is as under:- Section/Act Sentence Fine Sec. 120(B) of IPC Imprisonment for life till last breath Rs.20,000/- in default SI for 1 year Sec. 121(A) of IPC Imprisonment for life till last breath Rs.20,000/- in default SI for 1 year Sec. 125 of IPC Imprisonment for life till last breath Rs.5,000/- in default SI for 1 year Sec. 13 of UAPA Amendment Act, 2008 RI for five years Rs.20,000/- in default SI for 1 year Sec. 17 and 18 of UAPA Amendment Act, 2008 Imprisonment for life till last breath Rs.20,000/- in default SI for 1 year Sec. 38 and 39 of UAPA Amendment Act, 2008 RI for 10 years Rs.20,000/- in default SI for 1 year 3. The aforesaid impugned judgment and order convicted two persons and the present applicant filed Criminal Appeal No. 206 of 2024, which came to be admitted by an order dated 29.01.2024 by this Court. 4. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate for the applicant has argued that it is a case of absolutely no evidence as the only evidence is of the witnesses, who have narrated a story in which no role of the applicant is coming out. It is a case where on surmises, a theory is developed by the prosecution that the applicant and other accused are indulging in Anti National Activity and after being radicalized are indulging in terrorist activities. However, there is no instance of any terror activity nor is there any link established by the prosecution between the applicant or any known terrorist or notified terrorist organization. 4.1 It is submitted that though the allegations against the applicant are to be in contact with the terrorist organization and in touch with the terrorist overseas, but there is no investigation with regard to those named terrorists working overseas nor any connection of the applicant with them. 4.1 It is submitted that though the allegations against the applicant are to be in contact with the terrorist organization and in touch with the terrorist overseas, but there is no investigation with regard to those named terrorists working overseas nor any connection of the applicant with them. It is submitted that in fact, when the applicant was being investigated, at that time, the so-called ISIS terror organization was not even notified as a terror organization under the relevant provisions of The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (for short “UAPA, Act”). It is submitted that ISIS was declared as a banned organization in February-2015, whereas the activities which are alleged against the applicant were prior to February-2015 and therefore, connection even if any with ISIS cannot be considered to be a connection with a banned terror organization. The permissions for prosecution were sanctioned for 80 accused who were arrested earlier under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. For the subsequently arrested accused, charge-sheet is required to be submitted before Court. There is a prima facie case against the aforesaid accused having his involvement in commission of the offence under Section 120 (B), 121(A), 125 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 13, 17, 18, 38 & 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 4.2 Learned senior advocate for the applicant has argued on the ground of Article 21 of the Constitution of India that a liberty of an individual cannot be curtailed except by procedure established by law. In support of this contention, he has argued that for prosecuting the applicant under UAPA Act, sanction is an essential requirement. He has drawn attention of this Court to the provision pertaining to sanction, namely Section 45(2) of UAPA Act and submitted that this section provides for exercise of review to be undertaken by the reviewing authority before grant of sanction. According to learned advocate for the applicant, the prosecution has not established, during the course of trial, that such exercise by the reviewing authority has taken place, thereby complying the requirement of Section 45 of UAPA, Act. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to bring on record the report of the review authority and as such a report was not on record, the prosecution has failed to establish the sanction to prosecute. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the prosecution to bring on record the report of the review authority and as such a report was not on record, the prosecution has failed to establish the sanction to prosecute. 4.3 It is further argued that even if it is accepted that the review authority has submitted its report, but the chronology of time within which the review authority submitted its report and the sanctioning authority based on such reviewing authority’s report has granted sanction is too less, therefore suggesting of non-application of mind. It is submitted that there was no sufficient period for the sanctioning authority to undertake necessary exercise in scrutinizing the record available with it and therefore also the sanction cannot be treated as a valid sanction to prosecute. 4.4 It is submitted that in any case, it was the duty of the prosecution to establish on record, both the grant of sanction as well as complete following of the due procedure in grant of such sanction. It is submitted that only the Investigating Officer was examined, through whom the sanction order was brought on record, but the prosecution has not examined the author of the sanctioning order or the reviewing authority to establish that the sanction order was passed after following due procedure. 4.5 It is submitted that the sanction order is a stereotype order and an outcome of cut paste as the sanction order mentions incorrect facts when it mentions that the sanction order was for case involving 80 accused persons, whereas in the present case, the sanction was for prosecuting only 02 number of accused. 4.6 On merits, learned advocate has submitted that even the charges framed against the applicant are too vague as the charge was that the applicant was radicalized as he was in contact with one Maulvi Al Faizal, who was operating from overseas however, the prosecution could not prove that such a person is existent at all, whereas the deposition of the Investigating Officer indicates that the Investigating Officer had not made any attempt to find out the existence of such person namely Maulvi Al Faizal nor the prosecution had investigated about his connection with ISIS. 4.7 It is submitted that the applicant has been convicted for preparation to commit the offense and for this purpose, the prosecution has only relied upon a statement which vaguely referred the applicant to a telephonic conversation with another individual for purchase of firearm. Except for this verbal exchange, there is no other evidence like recovery or discovery of even any firearm and therefore, there is no sufficient proof though the allegations are of very serious nature. 4.8 It is submitted that though the prosecution has relied upon and the trial Court accepted the version given by the prosecution witness, but these witnesses in their deposition have failed to specify the role of the applicant in this serious offense. According to learned advocate, the entire case of the prosecution is based on hypothesis and that too for preparation to commit an offense. This theory is not substantiated by any act which has followed the so called preparation. 4.9 Learned advocate submitted that the entire case of prosecution is based on technical evidence like mobile call details and the content of the social media account of the applicant however, the prosecution has miserably failed to connect the applicant with such material. Learned advocate has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Fuleshwar Gope vs. Union of India, reported in, AIR 2024 SC 4684 . 4.10 Learned advocate has also argued with regard to the proportionality of sentence, particularly considering the nature of evidence and even to the extent of whether any offense was completed so as to justify such a severe sentence of life imprisonment. 5. As against this, Mr. Hardik Dave, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the grant of application by submitting that the prosecution under UAPA, Act itself contemplates stringent conditions for grant of bail. He referred to Section 43D of UAPA, Act and submitted that once the Court of competent jurisdiction has recorded the conviction, there is no question of presumption of innocence and therefore, where the conditions for grant of bail pending trial are so stringent, then the case of the applicant post conviction may not deserve any consideration. The Court may only consider grant of suspension of sentence where the applicant is able to establish perversity in the judgment and order of conviction. The Court may only consider grant of suspension of sentence where the applicant is able to establish perversity in the judgment and order of conviction. it is submitted that the entire argument is based only on lack of proper sanction order and no role of the applicant on basis of the evidence. 5.1 It is submitted that the Court, at the stage of suspension of sentence, is not required to undertake the scrutiny of the evidence examined and concluded by the trial Court, but is merely required to refer to the evidence and whether such evidence is sufficient to convict. Learned Public Prosecutor submitted that the trial Court has undertaken close scrutiny of the evidence of several witnesses and therefore, the learned Public Prosecutor took this Court through the evidence of the witnesses regarding the role of the applicant. 5.2 Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that with regard to the issue of grant of sanction and non-compliance of requirement of bringing on record the entire report of reviewing authority. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the same is not the requirement for successful prosecution and the only requirement is that existence of the sanction order duly granted by competent authority. That, the applicant has not questioned the sanction order during the course of the trial by putting relevant questions to the witness, who has exhibited the sanction order nor has called upon the trial Court to examine any witness in this regard. In fact both the issue of lacking proper sanction order and procedural lack in reviewing authority was challenged by a separate petition before the Court but unsuccessfully. Therefore, mere making of a submission on the issue of the sanction at the stage of final arguments in trial cannot be treated as an issue, which will affect the trial. 5.3. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that relying on decision of the Apex Court in Full Fuleshwar Gope vs. Union of India (Supra). Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that the challenge ought to be at the threshold of the trial as the issue will itself decide the jurisdiction of the designated Court to try the case. 5.4. Learned Public Prosecutor has then taken this Court to certain evidences in the form of deposition of the witnesses. He submitted that these witnesses are independent witnesses and by no means be treated as Stock witnesses. 5.4. Learned Public Prosecutor has then taken this Court to certain evidences in the form of deposition of the witnesses. He submitted that these witnesses are independent witnesses and by no means be treated as Stock witnesses. These witnesses have described the role of the applicant which would amount to the offence charged. 5.5. Learned Public Prosecutor has also taken this Court through the Facebook post of the applicant 2015 onward, which is promoting ISIS Activity. Moreover, technical evidence from the device of the applicant would also constitute an offence. 5.6 With regard to the argument of lack of evidence on the point of initiating the investigation or the activity strictly falling within UAPA, Act, as ISIS was not a banned Terror Organization. Learned Public Prosecutor has submitted that station diary entry under Section 102 of Cr.P.C., which was exhibited shows the evidence regarding initiation of the offence. Moreover as and when the Charge-sheet was filed and cognizance was taken, the ISIS was declared as Terror outfit. 6. In rejoinder, learned Senior Advocate has reiterated that the argument on lack of sanction on the ground of the requirement of Section 45 is not established like application of mind by reviewing authority and that of the sanctioning authority and the prosecution has failed to discharge this burden. 6.1 Learned Senior advocate also argued on the proportionality of the sentence submitting that the sentence imposed is way disproportionate even to the act attributed to the applicant. 7. Heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. Vide Ex.36 the accused applicant and another accused were charged for offences under Sections 13, 17, 18, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and under Sections 121(A), 120(B) and 125 of the Indian Penal Code. In the charge it is recorded that the accused were working for ISIS (Islamic State In Iraq and Syria), they came in contact with absconding accused i.e. Safi Armar alias Yusuf Al Hindi, through social media network, they were under influence of ideology of ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria), a banned militant (terrorist) organisation and to further its activities, the applicant-accused and Stimbarwala Mohammad Kasim @ Abu Hamja Al Mujahir used to instigate the witnesses in present case, through personal contacts, mobile and other electronic devices and social media websites such as Facebook etc., to partake terrorist activities and destruction. Such as well as other related acts have been committed by the accused. Further, the accused persons came under influence of a Jamaika based terrorist and Maulavi Sheikh Abdulla Al Faisal through the videos of his anti Jews and anti Hindu speeches and planned to undertake terrorist activities and terrorist attacks in India, wherein the present accused planned to flee the country to settle himself in Jamaika. Further, the present applicant-accused and Stimbarwala Mohammad Kasim @ Abu Hamja Al Mujahir, on the instructions of Safir Armar, had reached Kolkata in August 2024 to facilitate the witnesses in the present case to cross the border into Bangladesh and then moving to Syria to join ISIS and at that time, the present applicant-accused and Stimbarwala Mohammad Kasim @ Abu Hamja Al Mujahir have actively aided and abetted. The present applicant-accused and Stimbarwala Mohammad Kasim @ Abu Hamja Al Mujahir have circulated the ISIS Content to influence others to join the militant group and gather arms. Further, the present applicant contacted with Stimbarwala Mohammad Kasim @ Abu Hamja Al Mujahir in 2012, who was involved in banned militant activities since 2013-14. The present applicant-accused was in contact with Jamaica based militant Abdulla Al Faizal, through social media, who used to instigate to execute terrorist attacks. Stimbarwala Mohammad Kasim @ Abu Hamja Al Mujahir was in contact with Safi Armar alias Yusuf Al Hind, through social media. 8. Firstly, the Court may address the issue of sanction. Exh.311 is the sanction order dated 20.04.2018 issued by the Home Department under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Section 45 of the UAPA Act, which was brought on the record during the evidence of the Investigating Officer vide Exh.288 as PW-76. It would be relevant to refer to the tenor of question put to this witness in the cross-examination in paras-77 and 78 which recorded as under:- “77. I am aware that rules were framed in the year 2008 for obtaining approval under Section 45 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). However, I do not recall them at present. The approval bearing Exb. No.311 was received by me from the Home Department of the Government of Gujarat on 20/04/2018. While I did not personally visit the Home Department, I had sent the proposal along with the necessary documents. Prior to the issuance of this approval, I had a meeting with Mr. However, I do not recall them at present. The approval bearing Exb. No.311 was received by me from the Home Department of the Government of Gujarat on 20/04/2018. While I did not personally visit the Home Department, I had sent the proposal along with the necessary documents. Prior to the issuance of this approval, I had a meeting with Mr. Badheka Saheb, Head of the Home Department. However, I do not recall the details of the discussion that took place. Additionally, I visited the residence of Shri H.B. Antani Saheb, Retired High Court Judge, but I do not remember the exact date of my visit. No entry regarding this visit was recorded in my case diary. 78. It is incorrect to state that I did not meet any officer of the Home Department or Mr. Antani Saheb in connection with obtaining approval Exb.No.311. It is also incorrect to state that I did not submit approval Exb.No.311 at the time of filing the charge sheet. However, it is true that, at the time of filing the charge sheet in Hon’ble Court on 20/04/2018, the charge sheet did not explicitly mention the approval, and no name of any person was included in the list of witnesses. I state that the sanction was directly submitted to the court on 20/04/2018. It is incorrect to allege that no approval was submitted on 20/04/2018 and that it was submitted at a later date. However, it is true that no separate forwarding letter was prepared for the sanction that was submitted.” 8. The tenor of the questions does not suggest a challenge to the grant of sanction or questioning the procedure regarding the proposal being sent to the Reviewing Committee and the opinion of the Reviewing Committee. 9 Moreover, the applicant also filed Special Criminal Application No.8785 of 2018, praying for quashing of the FIR being C.R.No.I-04 of 2017 registered with ATS Police Station and the resultant charge-sheet predominantly on the ground of lack of sanction and the procedure of reviewing committee. This petition was disposed by orders dated 26.03.2019 and 28.03.2019. The orders record that the High Court itself had called for the papers of the reviewing authority. It also records the report of the reviewing authority was given to the learned advocate for the applicant and thereafter, permitted withdrawal of the petition, leaving it open for the applicant to take any other legal recourse. The orders record that the High Court itself had called for the papers of the reviewing authority. It also records the report of the reviewing authority was given to the learned advocate for the applicant and thereafter, permitted withdrawal of the petition, leaving it open for the applicant to take any other legal recourse. Reportedly, no other legal recourse was then taken by the applicant. 10. Therefore, when the applicant had cross-examined the Investigating Officer, the applicant was already in possession of the reviewing authority report, still there was no question asked to the witness regarding the reviewing authority and procedure thereon. In any case, the Court is not inclined to consider the case for suspension of sentence on the issue of sanction alone. 11. The other sub-argument again on issue of sanction is that for an offense under Section 13 of UAPA, the sanctioning authority is the Central Government and as there is no sanction by the Central Government and only sanction order is of the State Government. The Court may immediately refer to a letter No.14017/6/2007-NI-III by Joint Secretary, Government of India dated 17.03.2008. Para-3 reads as under:- “3. Now, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause(i) of section 45 of the aforesaid Act, the Central Government, hereby authorises the Secretaries of all the State Governments and Union territory Administrations in-charge of the Home Department, to exercise the powers to sanction prosecution in respect of offense punishable under the said Act triable by a court in their respective States and Union territories.” Hence, also this sub-argument is not accepted. 12. The Court may refer to the decision of the Apex Court in case of Judgebir Singh v/s. National Investigating Agency, reported in, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 543. In paras-34 to 39, the Apex Court has focused on Section 45 of the UAPA relevant rules and concluded in para-50 about the essence of the sanction to demonstrate scrutiny of relevant evidence gathered and application of mind to the same and the sanction order to reflect application of mind. 13. The Court has perused Exh.311, the sanction order. The order refers to the evidence collected and reason to accord sanction. 13. The Court has perused Exh.311, the sanction order. The order refers to the evidence collected and reason to accord sanction. The gist of the sanction order it is recorded that from the papers of investigation that the above persons, since the year 2013-14, have been strong influences by the ideology of the banned organization ISIS (Islamic State in Iraq and Syria) and have supported the activities associated with the organization. Both the accused namely Mohmad Kasim (Khasim) @ Abu Hamjha Muhajid S/o Mohamad Hanif Stimarwala & Ubed Ahemad @ Ubed Mirjha @ Obed Mirjha S/o Mirjha Ujher Abdul Raouf Bag, applicant herein using the social media, get influenced with the ideology and the malpractices of the said organization to commit terrorist acts. With the use of social media, they tried luring the youth with the Islamic ideology. As well as Mohmad Kasim (Khasim) @ Abu Hamjha Muhajid S/o Mohamad Hanif Stimarwala and Ubed Ahemad @ Ubed Mirjha @ Obed Mirjha S/o Mirjha Ujher Abdul] Raouf Bag had planned for Lone Wolf type of attacks on Hindus and Jews and to design the conspiracy Mohmad Kasim (Khasim) @ Abu Hamjha Muhajid S/o Mohamad ; Hanif Stimarwala had recced the Synagogue in the Jamalpur area of Ahmedabad. Moreover, they have been in active touch with the recruiters of ISIS based in various parts of India. The organization sown hon different names such Islamic State, Islamic State of Iraq (151), Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham/Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (JSIL) and Ab Dawaah-al-islamia Fal al- Also known as Iraq Wa-al-Sham (Dais) is a banned organization under section 35 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the same has been published in the Official Gazette of the Government of India. 13.1 Referring to the opinion of reviewing authority the sanction order records that the opinion obtained from the Review Authority constituted under Sub-Section - (2) of Section - 45 of the amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, is also mandatory for the Government to prosecute the accused with respect to the offence registered with A.T.S. Police Station I-C.R. No 04/2017 of Ahmedabad in Gujarat State. And Whereas considering the papers of investigation carried out by the Investigating Officer and the provisions of the amended Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, the Review Authority, at prima facie, satisfied with regards to the role played by the aforesaid accused in commission of the offence and recommended to prosecute the accused in respect of the offence registered as A.TS. Police Station I-C.R. No. 04 of2017 of Ahmedabad in Gujarat State. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Fuleshwar Gope vs. Union of India (Supra) had an occasion to examine the issue of sanction to prosecute and its various facets, though various issues were discussed. Relevant for our purpose is paras-17 and 18. “18. The afore-cited authorities point to only one conclusion which is that sanction, though should be challenged at the earliest possible opportunity, it can be challenged at a later stage as well. These judgments, although not specifically in the context of laws such as UAPA, posit a generally acceptable rule that a right available to the accused, which may provide an opportunity to establish innocence, should not be foreclosed by operation of law, unless specifically provided within the statutory text. At the same time, challenging validity of sanction cannot and should not be a weapon to slow down or stall otherwise valid prosecution. Other legislations such as the CrPC provide mechanisms for the sanction and subsequent actions to be saved from being invalidated due to any irregularity etc. Section 465 CrPC provides for the possibility that a sanction granted under Section 197 CrPC can be saved by its operation. Similarly, a sanction under the PC Act, if found that there was any error, omission or irregularity would not be vitiated unless the same has resulted in failure of justice. 18. The UAPA does not provide for any such saving of the sanction. This implies that, in the wisdom of the legislature, the inbuilt mechanism of the Act of having two authorities apply their mind to the grant of a sanction, is sufficient. This emphasizes the role and sanctity of the operation to be carried out by both these authorities. In order to challenge the grant of sanction as invalid, the grounds that can be urged are that (1) all the relevant material was not placed before the authority; (2) the authority has not applied its mind to the said material; and (3) insufficiency of material. In order to challenge the grant of sanction as invalid, the grounds that can be urged are that (1) all the relevant material was not placed before the authority; (2) the authority has not applied its mind to the said material; and (3) insufficiency of material. This list is only illustrative and not exhaustive. The common thread that runs through the three grounds of challenge above is that the party putting forward this challenge has to lead evidence to such effect. (emphasis supplied) That, needless to say, can only be done before the Trial Court. In that view of the matter, we have no hesitation in holding that while we recognise the treasured right of an accused to avail all remedies available to him under law, in ordinary circumstances challenge to sanction under UAPA should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity so as to enable the Trial Court to determine the question, for its competence to proceed further and the basis on which any other proceeding on the appellate side would depend on the answer to this question. [See: S.Subbegowda (supra)] In the attending facts and circumstances of the present case, keeping in view the submission made at the bar that the trial is underway and numerous witnesses (113 out of 125) already stand examined, we refrain from returning any finding on the challenge to the validity of the sanction qua the present appellant and leave it to be raised before the Trial Judge, who shall, if such a question is raised decide, it promptly.” 15. From the aforesaid judgment, it is not coming out that the exercise undertaken by the reviewing authority under Section 45(2) in also required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In the opinion of the Court, the order of sanction is a culmination of the procedural steps envisaged under Section 45 of the UAPA Act. Once the sanction order is passed, the Court is obliged to believe the compliance of procedural aspect unless the person is able to challenge the same and that too by cogent evidence not merely by placing an argument. 16. Once the sanction order is passed, the Court is obliged to believe the compliance of procedural aspect unless the person is able to challenge the same and that too by cogent evidence not merely by placing an argument. 16. Yet another decision on sanction, though relating to PC Act in case of Central Bureau of Investigation and others vs. Pramila Virendra Kumar Agarwal, reported in, (2020) 17 SCC 664 , wherein it is held that absence of sanction or invalidity on the ground of non-application of mind as an issue to be raised at threshold. 17. As stated in the preceding paras, the challenge by the applicant to grant of sanction on the ground of non-following of procedure, non-application of mind as the time framed within which the sanction was granted after the report of the reviewing authority was unsuccessful before this Court and thereafter, the issue was never raised except for the questions put to the Investigating Officer referred to hereinabove. However, no questions were put with regard to the process before the sanction authority as well as reviewing authority though the review authority’s report was available with the applicant. 18. Moreover, as is held by the Apex Court, the purpose behind the sanction order by the sanctioning authority is to safeguard the rights of the accused however, it is the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority which is the foundation for the sanction order. Such subjective satisfaction may not be substituted by the Court. The only avenue available to the Court is to scrutinize the procedure and the record on the basis of which the subjective satisfaction of the sanctioning authority is based. 19. In view of the aforesaid reasonings, the Court is not inclined to accept the argument of the learned advocate for the applicant that the entire investigation and trial would stand vitiated, more particularly, while examining the issue of suspension of sentence pending the appeal. 20. The Court may thereafter examine the case on the basis of evidence available on record. The Court has gone through the evidence of several witnesses who have deposed attributing the role to the applicant. For brevity, the Court may refer some of the relevant depositions of the eye-witnesses to evidence the activity of the applicant. PW-16 S.K.Asik, examined vide Exh.111 is an independent witness. He has deposed that in 2014, Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi of ISI had declared Khilafat. For brevity, the Court may refer some of the relevant depositions of the eye-witnesses to evidence the activity of the applicant. PW-16 S.K.Asik, examined vide Exh.111 is an independent witness. He has deposed that in 2014, Abu Bakr Al Bagdadi of ISI had declared Khilafat. At that time, Hafio Ahmed said to him that Khilafat has been declared and all of them should migrate (commit a hizrat). At that time, when he used to chat with Hafio Ahmed, he used to try to convince him that all of them should migrate. When he celebrated 15 th August with the national flag, he told him that ‘nationality’ is haram. Such things went on for quite some time. His mobile number 8420392332 was public, i.e. visible to all the users, on Facebook. In the beginning, they had casual conversations over the phone. After some time, he told him that four boys were to arrive in Kolkata. When he asked for the purpose of their coming to Kolkata, he told him to get the four boys cross the border into Bangladesh. He had given his mobile number to one of those four boys, who called him up and said that, “Hafio Ahmed alias Umedbhai has told us that you will get us cross the border into Bangladesh.” At that time, he felt that something wrong is going on. Therefore, he disconnected the call and blocked the number. Since then, he has never got in touch with him, till date. He does not remember even the mobile number as on date. Hafio Ahmed has never misbehaved with him and he is a good friend. When the Modi Government came into power, he was sent a message wherein he was asked to become a ‘jehadi,’i.e. a religious warrior. He had more than 5000 friends on his Facebook page, wherein any post by him used to attract 10 to 20 comments and 500 to 600 ‘Likes’, which mostly used to speak about jihad, conspiracy theory, hijarat etc. 21. Another witness PW-17 Mohamamd Jabiullah Khan examined vide Exh.112. The deposition of this witness is that firstly he created an email ID on Yahoo.com in name and style of asifjabi1@yahoo.com and thereafter, he created a Facebook ID in name of Asif Jabi, using which he used to send ‘friend requests’ and even other users used to send him ‘friend requests’. Another witness PW-17 Mohamamd Jabiullah Khan examined vide Exh.112. The deposition of this witness is that firstly he created an email ID on Yahoo.com in name and style of asifjabi1@yahoo.com and thereafter, he created a Facebook ID in name of Asif Jabi, using which he used to send ‘friend requests’ and even other users used to send him ‘friend requests’. Thereafter, he used to see a number of posts containing anti-Muslim contents. ISIS related posts used to appear from a handle named Ubed Kasim. He was having a number of online friends on Facebook such as Rafiq etc. The appearing posts were related to ISIS and Iraq war. Kasim published a post about worshiping of cow and against Al Qaida. As he was a sympathizer of Al Qaida at that time, he opposed it. At that time, Kasim stated, “what Al-Qaida is doing is not appropriate and instead, one may support ISIS. Some time, I will give you proofs in this regard.” At that time, Kasim asked for his WhatsApp number, pursuant to which, he had given his WhatsApp number. Thereafter, a WhatsApp group came to be formed in name of Asal Ul Tavahib Al Hil. The creator of the WhatsApp group was a person named Safir Armar and he was also known as Abu Yusuf. Discussions used to take place in the group. Later, Kasim told to shut the WhatsApp group. Thereafter, general conversations continued to take place. This WhatsApp group was formed to support ISIS. Discussions had also taken place about gathering a fund of Rs. 300 Crore for release of the persons imprisoned for terrorist activities in India. 21.1 The reasons for his attraction to these hardliner thoughts is the Gujarat Riots 2002, the online anti-Muslim contents and the non-Muslims making fun of him for his beard when he used to pursue studies in the college. Ubed had stated that, an illegal funds needs to be created for such purposes and such a fund can be accumulated through smuggling of cars, smuggling of gold and smuggling of imported cigarettes from Dubai to Bhuj. Umed had given him a contact number of a person for this purpose, but he cannot remember his name at present. There was a plan to bring him to Bhuj, however, they had not brought him. He recommended him Abdul Samir and a scholar from Pakistan whose name he cannot recollect at present. Umed had given him a contact number of a person for this purpose, but he cannot remember his name at present. There was a plan to bring him to Bhuj, however, they had not brought him. He recommended him Abdul Samir and a scholar from Pakistan whose name he cannot recollect at present. These two users used to share videos. Abu Hamza was Kasim’s Facebook ID and Hafio Ahmed was Ubed’s Facebook ID. They used to chat with them from these IDs. Ubed and Kasim used to suggest us to migrate (hizrat) to Syria to target Jews. But, he used to refuse to migrate and used to tell them that, they may establish an intelligence unit there itself. Ubed asked me to suggest him any better method for killing Jews. At that time, he had said to him that there is a drug called BL18. If it is administered, the person dies of a heart attack. The drug would dissolve in blood and nobody can discover it and it would appear as a natural death caused by a heart attack. He suggested him an another method that if a person is injected anti-syringe, it will cause cardiac-arrest and the person will die. Ubed had asked them to complete all the necessary work for establishing a military intelligence unit. In reply to a question on securing communication, he had told him that he would research thereon and would inform him later. Ubed stated to him that there is a group in Hyderabad appearing to be in support of Abu Bakr Bagdadi. They had recorded a video and sent it to Safi Arman. When Ubed spoke to him thereabout he said to him that whosoever was in contact of Safi Arman came to be arrested and he could be a spy, i.e. a non-bona fide ID. 21.2 Yet another witness-Shaziya Parvin-PW 71, who was examined vide Exh.271 has deposed that she had been using a Facebook account for two to three years before 2014. In 2014, she received a friend-request on her Facebook account. It was from a user named Mohammad Kasim Hanif wherein the name was written in Urdu. She had accepted that request. After, she accepted the request, the content visible from her account began to change. Messages and contents related to jehad were being sent to her Facebook account from the Facebook account of Mohammad Kasim Hanif. It was from a user named Mohammad Kasim Hanif wherein the name was written in Urdu. She had accepted that request. After, she accepted the request, the content visible from her account began to change. Messages and contents related to jehad were being sent to her Facebook account from the Facebook account of Mohammad Kasim Hanif. The contents related to Syria and ISIS were being sent to her FB account. During this time, she used to chat with the user of the FB account Mohammad Kasim Hanif on Facebook and WhatsApp messenger as well as over the phone. Mostly their conversations were related to the atrocities committed on Muslims. During this time, when she asked, he had said that he was a Mujahiddin. Meanwhile, from the stated social media handle, Mohammad Kasim had said to her that she may add two of his friends namely Mohammad Kasim and Ubed Mirza in her Facebook account. She sent friend-requests to Mohammad Kasim and Ubed Mirza who had accepted it. However, she did not have any conversation with them ever. She had noticed the contents related to jihad and ISIS on the FB accounts of Mohammad Kasim and Ubed Mirza. Meanwhile, Mohammad Kasim proposed her to marry him. She was residing at Kolkata and doing a job. Mohammad Kasim asked her to leave Kolkata and come to Surat with his family where he would get her a job. However, she clearly refused him for the same. Later, Mohammad Kasim backed from his promise of marriage. During this time, she was in constant touch with Mohammad Kasim and his account used to get suspended frequently. However, every time, he used to create a fresh account and used to get in touch with her. As far as she remembered, his last account was in the name of Mohammad Al Abu Hamza and he had contacted her from that Facebook account. In the year 2016-17, however she does not remember the year accurately, she received a call from Mohammad Kasim Hanif. It was about six in the evening when he called up, wherein he said to her that four of his friends have reached Howrah, who are to be facilitated to cross the border into Bangladesh. He told her that the four were to join ISIS. It was about six in the evening when he called up, wherein he said to her that four of his friends have reached Howrah, who are to be facilitated to cross the border into Bangladesh. He told her that the four were to join ISIS. When he asked her about crossing the international border into Bangladesh, she told him to get into any of the vehicles offering such services. She told Kasim that she used to live in Kolkata and the border was at some distance. She gave him the mobile number of one Ishrafi Mandal, who used to work in the office where she used to work and conveyed Kasim that he would help him. After some time, Kasim called her up again and asked to call one of the four persons to find out whether they had reached Bangladesh or not. Therefore, she called up one of the boys who stated to her that they are still in Howrah and they have not departed for Bangladesh, yet. On the next day, when she tried to call up these four boys, their mobile phones appeared to be switched off. 22. Over and above this evidence, the technical evidence is also available where on the social media platform, the applicant was having a Facebook Account running in the name of Hafio Ahmed. There is evidence on record which connects the applicant to the account and panchnama in this regard has been drawn vide Exh.101. 23. The prosecution has also placed on record the transcript of interception which contained the conversation which is brought on record through PW-75 N.R.Brahmbhatt of ATS. This interception and call detail records bear the certificate under Section 67B of the Evidence Act, which is exhibited vide Exh.239 through the Nodal Officer of the service provider at Exh.67. The Court has examined that the mobile phone was put under interception under the orders of the appropriate authority who was examined as PW-72 and the communication of State Intelligence Bureau vide Exh.276 putting the surveillance on the mobile phone belonging to the applicant. 24. Exh.101 is the panchnama recording the content of the Facebook profile of the applicant. This panchnama was proved by examining the panch witness at Exh.12 Atitbhai Jayeshbhai. 24. Exh.101 is the panchnama recording the content of the Facebook profile of the applicant. This panchnama was proved by examining the panch witness at Exh.12 Atitbhai Jayeshbhai. The Court has perused the content of the panchnama at Exh.101 to indicate that the content of the Facebook account of the applicant thus contained sufficient material to implicate the applicant in serious offenses for which the applicant is tried. 25. The Court has also taken into consideration the argument advanced that the invocation of UAPA if erroneous as the activity alleged against the applicant in connection with ISIS is in the period of 2014 whereas the said organization was included in the sch. of UAPA in the year 2018. The first Schedule of the UAPA declares Terrorist Organization where at item no, 38 ISIS (in Short) has appeared the foot note states that under S.O. 2947 (E) the entry was made dated 19.6.2018 however, the foot note also refers to S.534 (E) dated 16.2.2015 where also this entry was made. Meaning thereby, the ISIS was a declared Terrorist Organization since 2015. Exh. 183 is the station Dairy entry of the Police officer of ATS who is examined as PW,73 Shri M H Thakar which gives the Origin of the offence on the basis of the inputs through the Social Media where the names of the present accused surfaced with the change in the incumbent the said inputs were carried forward by the incoming officer. this would indicate that the activities of the accused having commenced from 2014 very much continued till 2017 which was evident from the surveillance record. Therefore the argument that the ISIS was recognized as Terror outfit in the year 2018 is of no consequence. 26. Though on behalf of learned advocate for the applicant, an argument was also advanced on disproportionate sentence imposed by the impugned judgment and order, the same being a issue which will have be considered at the stage of final hearing of the appeal, need not be considered for the purpose of suspension of sentence at this stage. 27. In view of aforesaid, no case is made out for interference. Hence, the application deserves to be and the same is hereby dismissed.