Abdul Taufeeque Shaikh, one of the defendants in the murder of Amravati chemist Umesh Kolhe, who was killed after expressing sympathy for then-BJP spokeswoman Nupur Sharma’s statements on Prophet Muhammad, filed a discharge petition, but the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has rejected it. According to the NIA, Shaikh twice carried out reconnaissance to assist the terrorist organisation in organising Kolhe’s assassination.
Shaikh filed a motion to be released from the case before a special NIA court on March 5. On June 21, three young guys on bikes attacked Amravati chemist Kolhe as he rode his scooter home. He was slashed to death. Although they were in a different car behind him, Kolhe’s son and daughter-in-law could not help him.
Shaikh requested his release because he was wrongfully accused. Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) did not contain any documentation proving his involvement in any terrorist act.
The application was met with strong opposition from the agency, which claimed that the accused was involved in a terrorist act of cold-blooded murder or brutal killing and that a larger conspiracy by a terrorist gang of accused individuals had conspired among themselves to terrorise a group of people and, through their claims, attempted to incite enmity based on religious differences.
The agency said there were links between the incident and other countries. They added that Shaikh and the other two accused carried out a “recce of the victim to eliminate him.”
The response said, “He (Shaikh) discussed the plan about the recce of the victim and went to Prabhat Talkies near Amit Medical Shop to perform the recce of the victim; however, the first attempt was in vain,” and that Shaikh took part in the recce once more the next day, which helped the murderers carry out their plan to kill Kohle.
“The accused’s act is not merely a straightforward murder; rather, it is part of a larger criminal conspiracy that was masterminded by vulnerable youth who have been radicalised by religion, with the ultimate goal of terrorising a portion of the population in Amravati and other Indian states,” the NIA response continued.
The NIA submitted that the issue of the sanction order, its validity, and/or application of mind by the competent authority is a matter of trial and cannot be considered during the hearing of the discharge application. This was in response to the accused’s claim that the defect in the sanction order under UAPA was not a mere irregularity, error, or omission.
