Delhi: “The damage is done now. People in our community avoid us. Some relatives still haven’t come to meet me. Even now, when people see me, they turn their heads away,” said Maulana Kalimuddin Mujahiri, speaking on the phone from his home in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand. “This case has affected me in every way possible, be it emotionally, financially, or socially.” 

On 28 February 2025, following nearly a decade-long legal battle, an additional sessions court in Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, dismissed charges—including those under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967—against Muslim cleric Maulana Kalimuddin Mujahiri, and his co-accused, Maulana Abdul Rahman Ali Khan (alias Maulana Mansoor aka Katki), from Cuttack in Odisha, and Abdul Shami, from Bistupur, a suburb of Jamshedpur. 

The judge, in the ruling, accessed by Article 14, said, “It is clear that there is no sufficient cogent evidence with regard to the offence alleged to be committed,” and that the prosecution had “miserably failed to prove its case”. 

The UAPA, intended to fight terrorism, has become a go-to tool for authorities, often used to target common people with barely any evidence. The latest government data shows an increase in registered cases and a low conviction rate. 

According to data provided by the ministry of home affairs in the parliament on 6 August 2024, a total of 8,719 cases had been registered under the UAPA from 2014 to 2022, the latest year data from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) is available. 

There had been 567 (6.5%) acquittals and 222 (2.55%) convictions in these UAPA cases. More than 90% of cases had not reached a conclusion, indicating that the cases are still active or may still be active. 

According to the 2022 report, UAPA: Criminalising Dissent and State Terror, by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), the use of the UAPA has increased since 2014, the year the Bharatiya Janta Party came to power. 

Data compiled from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) website by the PUCL showed that the NIA registered 69 UAPA cases between 2009 and 2014, averaging 13.8 cases per year over the five years. Between 2014 and 2022, the number rose to 288 cases, averaging 36 cases per year over an eight-year period. This is a 160.8% increase in the yearly rate of UAPA cases registered by the NIA over these periods. 

Sanjay Hegde, senior advocate at the Supreme Court and civil rights lawyer, pointed out that Mujahiri’s case is not unusual and reflects the way police investigations generally proceed. He said the concern isn’t about whether they’ve caught the right person or if someone innocent is being jailed. 

“It’s more about closing the file, especially when there’s political or media pressure, and letting the courts take over at their usual slow pace,” said Hegde. 

In the context of the UAPA law, Hegde notes that its draconian provisions make it tougher for courts to grant bail. 

According to the 2022 PUCL report, only 23% of those arrested were granted bail between 2018 and 2020. 

“Afterwards, at the end of very long processes and periods of imprisonment, people do get acquitted, but till then, their lives have changed,” said Hegde. 

Hegde said that this pattern continues largely because there is no penalty for faulty investigations. 

“The UAPA is sometimes seen as a kind of nuclear option available to law enforcement, and it tends to be used most frequently in cases involving activists or individuals from minority communities,” Hegde added. 

How The Case Took Shape 

Mujahiri, Khan and Shami were arrested between 2015 and 2019 on allegations of having links with Al-Qaeda in the Indian Subcontinent (AQIS). The sequence began in December 2015 with the arrest of Khan by the NIA in Odisha. 

Following this, Shami was arrested by the NIA in Haryana on 19 January 2016. 

Mujahiri was arrested in 2019 and was sent to jail for 14 months before being granted bail in November 2020 by the Jharkhand High Court. 

According to a 2020 article by LiveLaw, the court, in its 2020 bail order, stated, “No material has been collected with regard to the petitioner's involvement in any activities of Al-Qaeda outfit, nor has the investigating officer collected any material concerning the money given to this petitioner by any organization, who was involved in unlawful activities.” 

The first mention of Maulana Mujahiri in connection with the case was on 25 January 2016, during police interrogation of a fourth suspected operative of AQIS, Ahmad Masood Akram Sheikh, also from Jamshedpur.

According to the 54-page judgment dated 28 January 2025, accessed by Article 14, Sheikh disclosed that he had met Khan at Maulana Mujahiri’s house in Jawahar Nagar, Jamshedpur. He claimed that these meetings were held at the residence to organise terrorist activities. 

Despite this early mention, Maulana Mujahiri was still not named in the first information report (FIR) that was registered on the day of the Sheikh’s interrogation at Bistupur Police Station, in Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum district of Jharkhand. 

The original FIR named only four individuals as the prime accused: Sheikh (also known as Masood or Monu), Nasim Akhtar (also known as Raju), Shami, and Khan (alias Maulana Mansoor, also known as Katki). 

Sheikh was sentenced to eight years in jail in 2023 for violating the Arms Act, 1959.

Following the investigation, two charge sheets were filed. The initial charge sheet was filed on 22 July 2016 and did not name Maulana Mujahiri. Whereas the supplementary charge sheet, which specifically named him, was filed on 15 March 2020. 

Maulana Mujahiri was accused of having links with a banned group, for organising terrorist activities, and holding private religious meetings at his home where Al-Qaeda associated material was shared. 

According to court documents, accessed by Article 14, the prosecution claimed that during these sessions, videos promoting extremist ideas were shown and efforts were made to influence and possibly recruit young people. Authorities also claimed that parts of an AQIS manifesto were recovered from Maulana Mujahiri’s devices.

In the second charge sheet, where he is mentioned as A1, Maulana Mujahiri was charged under sections 121/34 (waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India with common intention), 121A/34 (conspiracy to wage war), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. 

He also faced charges under Section 17 (punishment for being a member of an unlawful association) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1932, and multiple sections of the UAPA, including Sections 16 (punishment for terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for terrorist acts), 18 (conspiracy to commit a terrorist act), 18B (recruitment for terrorist acts), 19 (harboring a terrorist), 20 (membership of a terrorist organization), 21 (holding proceeds of terrorism), and 23 (enhanced penalties). 

Additionally, he was charged with sections 25(1-A) and 26(II) of the Arms Act 1959, related to the unauthorised possession and use of arms. 

Balai Pandey, the lawyer representing Maulana Mujahiri, said that 16 witnesses were presented in court, but none could conclusively identify or connect the accused to any crime. 

“Some witnesses didn’t recognise them. Others had never met them. Some even claimed complete ignorance about the case,” said Pandey. 

Torture Allegations, Trial And Acquittal 

The Delhi police had questioned Maulana Mujahiri and his son, Mohammad Huzaifa, now 29 years of age, once in January 2016, but they were released the same day. 

Huzaifa was not named in the FIR or the chargesheet.

“The police said, ‘You guys seem like good people,’ and then they let us go,” said Huzaifa. 

Later the same month, the Jharkhand police took them in for questioning and released them again, according to Huzaifa. 

According to a report by Dainik Jagran, Maulana Mujahiri was detained once again on 1 February 2016 by the Jharkhand Police Anti-Terror Squad (ATS) but was released after he filed a complaint with the National Human Rights Commission alleging custodial harassment and wrote to the Prime Minister. 

During this detention, Huzaifa alleged that they were blindfolded and taken to an undisclosed location for three days and subjected to physical torture, after which they were allowed to return home. 

“They put us in a vehicle, covered our faces with a cloth, and took us to a deserted place. They tortured us and assaulted us brutally. They beat my father in front of me and me in front of my father,” he recalled. 

“I was just 19 at the time (2016). I still can’t forget what I saw,” said Huzaifa. “The torture we went through, if it had been done to an animal, it wouldn’t have survived.” 

Huzaifa claimed they were reportedly pressured into making false statements about their alleged links to extremist organisations. 

“They wanted my father to falsely implicate two other accused who had already been arrested,” said Huzaifa. “The police claimed those two had links to Al-Qaeda. To make my father confess, they tortured me in front of him.”

Huzaifa said that the interrogators accused them of having links to Al-Qaeda. “They asked us about WhatsApp groups and whether we were planning to flee to Pakistan,” he added. 

Huzaifa claimed their family had no idea where they were during their detention.

According to him, they were released only after sustained pressure from human rights activists. 

Article 14 sought comments on Huzaifa’s allegations from the superintendent of the Jharkhand ATS via email and WhatsApp on 25 June 2025. There was no reply. We will update this story if there is a response. 

In April 2016, the police summoned them again, said Huzaifa.

“We would go whenever the police called. But after what happened and with the intervention of rights groups, our lawyer advised us not to go without a formal notice. So this time, we didn’t,” Huzaifa said. 

For the next three years, they went into hiding, living in fear and avoiding public attention, before Mujahiri was finally arrested in 2019. 

After years of investigations and court proceedings, the charges—including those under the stringent UAPA—were dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge-I, Bimlesh Kumar Sahay, in Jamshedpur on 28 February 2025, citing insufficient evidence.

Reflecting on his acquittal, Maulana Mujahiri said, “The court let me go because I didn’t do anything wrong. My home was never a place for anything illegal, and they had nothing to show for their claims.” 

Mujahiri said his family had been the victim of a social boycott and that the accusation continued to affect them despite the acquittal.

Social Boycott And Trauma 

Maulana Mujahiri hails from Jamshedpur’s Azadnagar area and has four children: one son and three daughters. An Islamic teacher, he runs a madrasa named Jamia Mohammad Bin Abdullah Madarsa from his residence in Jawahar Nagar, Jharkhand. 

Sharing how his family suffered after his arrest in 2019, Maulana Mujahiri said, “After I went to jail for 14 months and came back, it had become difficult to get my children married. My first daughter got married two months after I was sent to jail. Except for my youngest, thankfully, all of them are now married.” 

His eldest son, Huzaifa, said that the case had interrupted his studies. 

“I was supposed to appear for my board exams, but I couldn’t. Then, in 2022, I somehow gave my 10th boards,” said Huzaifa. “The important Dars-e-Nizami course that I was pursuing to become an Islamic scholar, which is commonly known as the Aalim course, was left halfway. When I was in my fourth year of the eight-year course, the case started, and then I left the course.” 

Huzaifa said he had to step up and take on the responsibility to provide for his three sisters and mother. 

“To look after my family, I started grinding spices,” he said. “But then the stigma continued, and people hesitated to buy my spices.” 

Huzaifa said that due to the case against his father, people in the community started to ignore the rest of the family. 

“They used to keep a distance from me and my family, thinking that if they helped us, they might suffer too,” he said. “Even relatives stopped coming. We were left to manage on our own.” 

Maulana Mujahiri, whilst talking about the effects of the case, said he was “disappointed” with how he had been treated. “I lost so many things, money, peace, respect,” he said. “I was beaten. I was called a terrorist.” 

Mujahiri said that the legal system of India was their “sole ally” through the “years of suffering”. 

“No one supported us, no compensation, and even the Government didn’t help,” he added. “Even now, who’s helping us? No one.” 

A Systematic Problem 

While the court has finally cleared Mujahiri of all charges, the case highlights broader concerns about the application and misuse of strict anti-terror laws in India.

Over the past several years, numerous courts across India have acquitted those accused under the UAPA due to a lack of evidence, after long periods of incarceration. 

In 2021, a court in Surat acquitted 127 Muslims who had spent 19 years in jail earlier for allegedly being members of the banned Students Islamic Movement of India. Five of the accused had died during the lengthy trial. The court said the prosecution failed to produce any “cogent, reliable and satisfactory” evidence to prove the charges. 

That same year, a special NIA court in Mumbai acquitted two men in a UAPA case after they had spent nearly nine years in jail. They were accused of being part of a Lashkar-e-Toiba conspiracy to target politicians and journalists. The court found that the only evidence was a record of phone calls, which it ruled was not enough to prove conspiracy. 

In 2022, a Chhattisgarh court acquitted 121 tribals who had spent five years in jail. They had been accused of aiding Maoists in the 2017 Burkapal attack, in which 25 CRPF personnel were killed. The court found no evidence to show they were involved in the attack.

In 2023, a Delhi trial court discharged three men arrested in a 2012 NIA case that alleged a pan-India Indian Mujahideen conspiracy. One of the accused had been in jail since 2013, another since 2016. The court said there was no direct or credible evidence linking them to the banned outfit and that informal transactions alone were not enough to prove intent to fund terror under UAPA. 

These cases reveal a troublesome pattern: people being jailed for years, only for courts to later rule that the evidence was too weak to justify the charges under UAPA. 

According to the 2022 PUCL report, no actual act of violence occurred in 64% of conspiracy cases under Section 18 of the UAPA law. 

Many of these cases were based on claims that someone was linked to a banned group or was planning something illegal, even if no action had been taken yet, as seen in Maulana Mujahiri’s case. 

The report utilised data from the NCRB, but noted that the actual number of UAPA cases may be higher. This is due to the Principal Offence Rule, which records only the most serious charge in each case. 

If UAPA is not the main charge, it might not appear in the data. 

Highlighting the 1996 Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast Case, senior advocate at the Supreme Court and civil rights lawyer, Hegde notes that people are acquitted after long periods, only to return to their lives, but the Supreme Court later can overturn their acquittals. 

“The point I am making here is that the common man is in no position to challenge the police version of things or to demand compensation,” said Hegde. 

He added that this problem continues as there is no penalty for faulty investigations. “By the time any flaw is established, the officers have retired or moved on,” said Hegde. “Even departments are never made accountable, and there are no financial consequences.” 

In contrast, he notes that in the United States, civil suits, in which departments were ordered to pay compensation, drove some police reform. 

“In India, this kind of accountability does not exist. So, there is no structural pressure to get investigations right, said Hegde. “The real pressure is just to close the case and move on.” 

Referring to findings by PUCL that acquittals are far more prevalent than convictions in UAPA cases, Hegde pointed out that such laws allow police to cast a wide dragnet. “They put in all and sundry, and then much later, the courts find no real evidence. Lives are ruined, not just for the accused, but for families too.” 

He added that there are no legal tools for compensating for the wrongful arrests or addressing the lasting stigma. “Social boycotts, exclusion, there’s no law against them either.” 

(Saher Hiba Khan and Adnan Ali are Delhi-based multimedia freelance journalists who cover human rights, minority issues and social injustice.)

Get exclusive access to new databases, expert analyses, weekly newsletters, book excerpts and new ideas on democracy, law and society in India. Subscribe to Article 14.