High Court
Facts
Cri Appeal No.542.2021.odtIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYBENCH AT AURANGABADCRIMINAL APPEAL NO.542 OF 2021Talha Hanif Potrick,Age : 25 years, Occ. Student,r/o. H. No.1202, 12th Floor,Emrald `A’ wing, Dosti. Planet,North Shilphata, Kausa, Mumbra, Dist. Thane..AppellantVs.The State of Maharashtra,Through Maharashtra A.T.S.,..Respondent----Mr.T.W.Pathan, Advocate for appellantMr.A.R.Kale, Addl. Public Prosecutor for respondent – State ---- CORAM : R.G.AVACHAT AND NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. RESERVED ON :OCTOBER 14, 2024 PRONOUNCED ON:OCTOBER 18, 2024ORDER (Per R.G.Avachat, J.) :-This appeal arises from Crime No.1 of 2019, registered withKala Chowki, Mumbai (Anti Terrorist Squad, Aurangabad Unit PoliceStation, Dist. Aurangabad), for the offences punishable under Sections120-B and 201 of Indian Penal Code; Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of theUnlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (“UAPA”, for short); andSection 135 of Bombay Police Act; and the consequential charge-sheetdated 08.07.2019, on the file of learned Special Judge, Aurangabad. 2Cri Appeal No.542.20212.The appeal has been filed under Section 21 of theNational Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The challenge in theappeal is to the order refusing to grant the appellant bail. Theappellant is original accused no.9.3.The case of prosecution, in short, is as under:-Shri. Vijayant Jaiswal, Police Inspector attached to Anti-Terrorist Squad (A.T.S.), Aurangabad, had received a tip-off in August,2018. It was an information about the persons indulged indisruptive/subversive activities in Mumbai and Aurangabad regions.He, therefore, collected the names, addresses and cellphonenumbers of the suspected persons. The main suspect was MohsinKhan (accused no.1). It was further learnt that Mohsin had come toAurangabad along with some of his associates many a time. Heformed a group by name “Ummat-E-Mohammadiya”. They wereadmitting in the group the like-minded persons. It was further learntthat all of them were inspired by the ideology of `Islamic State ofIraq and Syria (ISIS)’ and were in contact with the foreign handlers.Cellphone numbers of other suspected persons were also obtained.Their call data records (CDRs) were collected. It was further learntand revealed as well that the suspected accused – Jaman hadinstructed Salman (co-accused) to use mask/hand-gloves while 3Cri Appeal No.542.2021handling the material kept on terrace for being dried. It was furtherdisclosed that some of the accused persons had conspired tomake/prepare poisonous substance and lace the same withfood/Prasad offered to Hindu devotees at a temple in Mumbai andelsewhere as well. It was, therefore, decided to effect raids at theresidential premises of all the suspects. Five different teams headedby different Inspectors of Police were formed. Raid was also effectedat the premises of the appellant at H. No.1202, 12th Floor, Emrald `A’wing, Dosti Planet, North Shilphata, Kausa, Mumbra, Dist. Thane. Hewas found to have been residing in the premises taken on rent.During search of his premises, number of cellphones, tablet-phones,pen-drives, hard-disk, laptop, router were seized besides sim cards.When mobile-phones were inspected, number of screen shots werefound. The appellant was in contact with the co-accused. He hadattended a dinner meeting hosted by accused no.1. 4.On 25.01.2019, the house of the appellant was searched.He was present. His mother too was present at the house. Duringsearch, three cellphones and three Lenovo tablets of variouscompanies, Sandisk pen-drive, Jio sim-card, Transcend pen-drive,Western Digital hard-disk, H.P. laptop, TP Link router with chargerwere seized. Then, the appellant made a disclosure statement on 4Cri Appeal No.542.202130.01.2019, stating therein that with a view to get connected withISIS, he used to make phone calls and used social media Apps., aswell. He and others had planned to carry out bomb blasts. Thecellphone he used for such talks was concealed in a flat at Mumbraand he would take out the same. He then took the police to aparticular place, at Mumbra, wherefrom the cellphone of Letvhandset with a particular IMEI numbers, Jio sim-cards, Vodafone sim-cards were seized.5.The appellant again made a disclosure statement on01.02.2019, stating therein Login-id and passwords, four in number..Pursuant to those passwords, various screenshots were obtained.However, recovery of E-mail could not be removed. Thewords/button “My Activity” was clicked. Google Dashboard gotopened. The data stored therein was downloaded. Same exercisewas carried out in respect of the other G-mail accounts. A detailpanchnama to that effect was drawn. Again, on 02.02.2019, theappellant made a disclosure statement. Two DVDs were checked.Pursuant to his statement, IP address was procured. Sixteenscreenshots were obtained. He further disclosed to have created anaccount on Telegram (App) with profile name - `Mohammad Talha’ oncellphone number 8369096625. He again made a disclosure
Legal Reasoning
12Cri Appeal No.542.2021(c) who, with intention to further the activity of aterrorist organisation, addresses a meeting for thepurpose of encouraging support for the terroristorganisation or to further its activity.(2) A person, who commits the offence relating to support givento a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1) shall bepunishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding tenyears, or with fine, or with both.15.Section 43-D of UAPA speaks of modified application ofcertain provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We areconcerned here with sub-sections (5) and (6) thereof. For betterappreciation, the same is, therefore, reproduced below:-43D. Modified application of certain provisions of the Code.—(1) ……….(2)……….(3)……….(4)……….(5)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, noperson accused of an offence punishable under Chapters IV andVI of this Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or on hisown bond unless the Public Prosecutor has been given anopportunity of being heard on the application for such release:Provided that such accused person shall not be releasedon bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the casediary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of theopinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that theaccusation against such person is prima facie true.(6) The restrictions on granting of bail specified in sub-section (5) is in addition to the restrictions under the Code orany other law for the time being in force on granting of bail(7)………..(8)……….. 13Cri Appeal No.542.202116.When the charge has been framed and 28 witnesseshave been examined, we restrict ourselves to not make prima facieobservations regarding merits of the matter, so that the trial courtshall not be influenced thereby. However, role of the presentappellant in the alleged crime and the material pitted against him ison our minds for deciding both the appeal. We have perused theseizure panchnama, indicating three cellphones, tablet-phones, pen-drives, hard-disk, laptop, router were seized besides sim cards fromthe room occupied by the appellant. There is material to indicatethat he was in contact with the co-accused. A telegram group wasformed. The appellant was inspired by the speeches/preaching ofZakir Naik - a hardliner of a banned organisation. We, however, donot find anything indicating the appellant to have played any overt-acts, except to have entertained a particular ideology and attendedthe parties/ meetings held twice.17.True, there is some other material as well. It may leadone to prima facie infer the appellant to have indulged incommission of the offence he is charged with. One cannot disputethe observations of the Apex Court in the cases of (i) ZahoorAhmad Shah Watali (supra) and (ii) Gurwinder Singh Vs. Stateof Punjab and anr., Criminal Appeal No.704 of 2024 [@Special 14Cri Appeal No.542.2021Leave Petition (Criminal) No.10047 of 2023] decided on07.02.2024, relied on by learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, indicatingthat the inculpatory statement of the co-accused or statement madeby accused to the police, may even to be considered.18.The appeal had come up for hearing number of times.This Court had requested the trial court to hold trial on day-to-daybasis. Same has not happened. Neither the prosecution nor the trialcourt or the accused (appellant) could be blamed for the delay intrial of the case. The fact is that the number of cited witnesses to beexamined is 179. Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submitted thatthey may examine not more than 40 witnesses in addition to thewitnesses already examined. There are ten accused persons. Itappears that different advocates are representing them before thetrial court. It is, thus, not known as to when the trial would reach toits logical conclusion. 19.On 24.01.2024, we had recorded submission of theSpecial Counsel representing the State. Paragraph 4 of the order isreproduced below:-4. It is submitted by the learned Special Counselrepresenting the State that the prosecution willexamine the remaining witnesses within a period of 15Cri Appeal No.542.2021six months from today. The learned advocate for theappellant submits that in the event the prosecutionfails to examine all the witnesses within a period ofsix months, he shall be granted liberty to move beforethe Court for grant of bail.It is true that learned Special Counsel, that time, hadsubmitted that the trial may be delayed for the reasons beyond hiscontrol. Same was not recorded by us, might be inadvertently.20.The fact remains that the trial is not likely to beconcluded in the near future. The appellant is behind the bars forlittle over 5 years and 9 months.21.In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal Vs. State of UttarPradesh, MANU/SC/0716/2024, the Apex Court observed thus:-22. It is trite law that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial.This Court in a catena of judgments has held that an accused oran under trial has a fundamental right to speedy trial which istraceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India. If the allegedoffence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for theprosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously.When a trial gets prolonged, it is not open to the prosecution tooppose bail of the accused-under trial on the ground that thecharges are very serious. Bail cannot be denied only on theground that the charges are very serious though there is no endin sight for the trial to conclude.23. This Bench in a recent decision dated 03.07.2024 in JavedGulam Nabi Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Appeal 16Cri Appeal No.542.2021No. 2787 of 2024, has held that howsoever serious a crime maybe, an accused has the right to speedy trial under theConstitution of India. That was also a case where fakecounterfeit Indian currency notes were seized from the accused-appellant. He was investigated by the National InvestigatingAgency (NIA) under the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008and was charged under the UAP Act along with Sections 489Band 489C IPC. He was in custody as an under trial prisoner formore than four years. The trial court had not even framed thecharges. It was in that context, this Court observed as under:-9. Over a period of time, the trial courts and the HighCourts have forgotten a very well settled principle of lawthat bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.23.1. After referring to various other decisions, this Courtfurther observed as follows:19. If the State or any prosecuting agencyincluding the court concerned has no wherewithalto provide or protect the fundamental right of anaccused to have a speedy trial as enshrined underArticle 21 of the Constitution then the State orany other prosecuting agency should not opposethe plea for bail on the ground that the crimecommitted is serious. Article 21 of theConstitution applies irrespective of the nature ofthe crime.20. We may hasten to add that the petitioner isstill an accused; not a convict. The over-archingpostulate of criminal jurisprudence that anaccused is presumed to be innocent until provenguilty cannot be brushed aside lightly, howsoeverstringent the penal law may be.21. We are convinced that the manner in whichthe prosecuting agency as well as the Court haveproceeded, the right of the accused to have a 17Cri Appeal No.542.2021speedy trial could be said to have been infringedthereby violating Article 21 of the Constitution.24. Earlier, in Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee(Representing Undertrial Prisoners) Vs. Union of India,MANU/SC/0877/1994 : 1994:INSC:456 : (1994)6 SCC 731 thisCourt had issued a slue of directions relating to under trials injail facing charges under the Narcotic Drugs and PsychotropicSubstances Act, 1985 (briefly, the ‘NDPS Act’ hereinafter) for aperiod exceeding two years on account of the delay in disposalof the cases lodged against them. In respect of under trials whowere foreigners, this Court directed that the Special Judgeshould impound their passports besides insisting on a certificateof assurance from the concerned Embassy/High Commission ofthe country to which the foreigner accused belonged and thatsuch accused should not leave the country and should appearbefore the Special Court as required.25. Similarly, in Shaheen Welfare Association Vs. Union of India,MANU/SC/0768/1996 : 1996:INSC:324 : (1996)2 SCC 616, thisCourt was considering a public interest litigation whereincertain reliefs were sought for under trial prisoners charged withoffences under the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities(Prevention) Act, 1987 (TADA Act) languishing in jail forconsiderable periods of time. This Court observed that whileliberty of a citizen must be zealously safeguarded by the courtsbut, at the same time, in the context of stringent laws like theTADA Act, the interest of the victims and the collective interest ofthe community should also not be lost sight of. While balancingthe competing interest, this Court observed that the ultimatejustification for deprivation of liberty of an under trial can onlybe on account of the accused-under trial being found guilty ofthe offences for which he is charged and is being tried. If such afinding is not likely to be arrived at within a reasonable time,some relief(s) becomes necessary. Therefore, a pragmaticapproach is required.26. Angela Harish Sontakke Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2021)3SCC 723 is a case where the accused-appellant was charged 18Cri Appeal No.542.2021under various provisions of the UAP Act as well as under the IPC.He sought for bail. This Court observed that, undoubtedly, thecharges are serious but the seriousness of the charges will haveto be balanced with certain other facts like the period of custodysuffered and the likely period within which the trial can beexpected to be completed. In that case, it was found that theappellant-accused was in custody since April, 2011 i.e. for overfive years. The trial was yet to commence. A large number ofwitnesses were proposed to be examined. It was in that contextthat the appellant-accused was directed to be released on bail.27. More recently, a three Judge Bench of this Court in Union ofIndia Vs. K.A. Najeeb, MANU/SC/0046/2021 : 2021:INSC:50considered an appeal filed by the Union of India through theNational Investigation Agency (NIA) against an order passed bythe High Court of Kerala granting bail to an accused-under trialfacing trial for allegedly committing offences, amongst others,under Sections 16, 18, 18B, 19 and 20 of the UAP Act.27.1. This Court noted that the appellant in K.A. Najeeb(supra) was in jail for more than five years. Charges wereframed only on 27.11.2020 and there were 276 witnessesstill left to be examined. This Court emphasized thatliberty granted by Part III of the Constitution would coverwithin its protective ambit not only due procedure andfairness but also access to justice and speedy trial. Nounder trial can be detained indefinitely pending trial.Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not bepossible and the accused has suffered incarceration for asignificant period of time, the courts would ordinarily beobligated to enlarge them on bail.27.2. Referring to the decision of this Court in NIA Vs.Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, MANU/SC/0458/2019 :2019:INSC:456 : (2019)5 SCC 1, this Court opined thatthe High Court in that case had virtually conducted amini trial and determined admissibility of certainevidence which clearly exceeded the limited scope of abail proceeding. Not only was it beyond the statutorymandate of prima-facie assessment under Section 43D(5) 19Cri Appeal No.542.2021of the UAP Act, it was premature and possibly wouldhave prejudiced the trial as well. It was in thesecircumstances that this Court in Zahoor Ahmad ShahWatali (supra) had to intervene leading to cancellation ofthe bail granted.22.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor tried to distinguish theApex Court judgment in the case of K.A.Najeeb (supra). True, theApex Court was dealing with a proceedings for cancellation of bailgranted to the accused therein. We agree with the submission oflearned Addl.P.P. that the parameters for grant of bail andcancellation thereof are altogether different. Suffice it to say that abench of three-Judge of the Apex Court was dealing with the case ofUnion of India Vs. K.A. Najeeb.23.Without observing anything more, we propose to rely onthe judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal(supra), which has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in thecase of K.A.Najeeb (supra) and other judgments referred to inparagraphs 24 to 27, and the statement made by learned SpecialCounsel to this appeal, and allow the appeal in terms of the followingorder:-(i)The appeal is allowed. 20Cri Appeal No.542.2021(ii)The impugned order passed by learned Addl. SessionsJudge, Aurangabad, refusing to grant bail to the appellant, is setaside.(iii)The appellant be released on bail on executing P.R. Bondin the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) with onesurety in the like amount.(iv)The appellant shall appear before the trial court on everydate of hearing, except he is granted exemption by the trial courtfrom appearance on account of his ill-health or like ground, providedthat the Advocate representing him would co-operate with the trialcourt, to take the trial to its logical conclusion.(v)The appellant shall attend A.T.S. Unit, Aurangabad,everyday, during 09.00 p.m. and 10.00 p.m., whenever he would bein Aurangabad.(vi)The appellant shall surrender his Passport, if any.(vii)The appellant shall give the Investigating Officer, hisaddress or place of his permanent abode during trial.(viii)If the appellant happens to be at Mumbra (his native 21Cri Appeal No.542.2021place), Dist. Thane, on holidays or any other day, he shall attendKala Chowki Police Station, Mumbai, during 09.00 p.m. and 10.00p.m., everyday. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.][R.G. AVACHAT, J.] KBP
Arguments
5Cri Appeal No.542.2021statement on 11.02.2019, stating therein that he used Telegram App.Two DVDs of Sony make were, therefore, opened. He gave sim-cardnumber 8551819034. In the profile, there was user name“@Istishadi23”. He gave its meaning as “इशतीशहादी इसका मतलब अल्लाह केराह मे जो शहीद हो जाते है उसको इशतीशहादी बोलते है|” He again made a disclosurestatement on 16.02.2019, stating therein that he and his friends, co-accused, would use Telegram App to contact each other, so as to talkin respect of ISIS, etc.6.All the screenshots noticed and found during inspectionof the cellphones and sim cards seized from the appellant were partof the police papers (charge sheet). It was, ultimately, revealed thatall the accused had conspired to commit disruptive/subversiveactivities against the Indian nation. A crime was, therefore,registered at Kala Chowki Police Station, Mumbai. It was investigatedby A.T.S. and on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet hasbeen filed before the Special Court, at Aurangabad.7.Heard learned counsel for the parties.8.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that theappellant was just 24 years old when he was arrested. Sections 15or 16 of UAPA have not been invoked, meaning thereby, the 6Cri Appeal No.542.2021appellant was not involved in the terrorist activities. He wouldsubmit that the statement of the a co-accused (juvenile in conflictwith law) was inadmissible in evidence. The appellant is presumedto be innocent, until proven guilty. He has been behind the bars forlittle over 5 years and 9 months. The trial is proceeding with snail’space. The prosecution has cited 179 witnesses and only 28 havebeen examined so far. No overt-acts have been attributed to theappellant. The appellant was neither member of any bannedorganisation nor indulged in any conspiracy. He would furthersubmit that there was delay of not less than 59 days in obtainingsanction of the competent authority for prosecuting the appellant.He relied on the decision of High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in thecase of Roopesh Vs. State of Kerala and ors.,MANU/KE/0889/2022, in this regard. He placed reliance on Rules 3and 4 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)(Recommendation andSanction of Prosecution) Rules, 2008. He also brought to our notice aGovernment Notification, whereunder, certain Officers were to beauthorised to inspect the electronic evidence. Although thenotification was issued, the officials to be authorised have neitherbeen named nor designated. He then brought to our notice, astatement made by the then Special Public Prosecutor on24.01.2024. He would submit that the Muddemal/seized articles were 7Cri Appeal No.542.2021not deposited immediately with the concerned police station withwhich the crime was registered.9.According to learned counsel for the appellant, it is afundamental right of the accused to have speedy trial. It is notknown, how many more years it will take to conclude the trial. If theappellant is ultimately acquitted, who will bring back the days theappellant spent behind the bars for no reason. He, then, took usthrough Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 of UAPA and particularly, thepunishment provided thereunder. Learned counsel, ultimately, urgedfor allowing the appeal and grant of bail on merit and on the groundof long incarceration as well. He relied on following authorities:-(i)Roopesh Vs. State of Kerala and ors., MANU/KE/0889/2022;(ii)Hussein Ghadially Vs. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0613/2014;(iii)Union of India (UOI) Vs. K.A.Najeeb, MANU/SC/0046/2021;(iv)The National Investigation Agency Vs. Areeb Ajaz Majeed, MANU/MH/0471/2021;(v)Iqbal Ahmed Kabir Ahmed Vs. State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/2082/2021 8Cri Appeal No.542.202110.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor would, on the otherhand, submit that it is a serious offence. Search was made in theroom of the appellant. The material which was found in the room ofthe appellant was seized. Some additional material was in thenature of cellphones, etc. The prosecution has, so far, examined 28witnesses. The prosecution is ready to go with the trial on day-to-day basis. For one or the other reason, the trial could not beconducted as per the directions of this Court dated 05.12.2022.Blame for delay in trial could not be put on the prosecution.According to him, it is the defence Advocate, who conducted cross-examination of one of the witnesses, for not less than 8-10 days.Learned Addl. Public Prosecutor then adverted our attention toSection 43-D(5) of UAPA to submit that same is interdict to grant bailto the appellant. According to him, when the charge has beenframed for the concerned offences of UAPA, same indicates thatthere is strong material to suggest involvement of the appellant. Hewould, therefore, be not entitled for grant of bail. Learned Addl.Public Prosecutor places on record certain documents indicating thematerial against the present appellant. According to him, cellphonesand sim cards have been seized from the rooms of the appellant, atH. No.1202, 12th Floor, Emrald `A’ wing, Dosti. Planet, NorthShilphata, Kausa, Mumbra, Dist. Thane. Then, the statement of co- 9Cri Appeal No.542.2021accused (juvenile-in-conflict with law) was read out. According tohim, in view of the Apex Court judgment in the case of NationalInvestigation Agency Vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, 2019DGLS (SC) 509 : (2009)5SCC 1, one has to go by the case diaryand police papers/charge-sheet, to find whether the appellant isinvolved in the offence under UAPA. Whether the material in charge-sheet is admissible or not in evidence, would be a question to bedecided by the trial court, whenever it would come up before it. 11. According to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, as of now,voluminous material indicates involvement of the appellant in theoffence in question. The appellant was in contact with the co-accused. He was inspired by ISIS ideology. He was influenced by thespeeches of Zakir Naik - a hardliner of a banned Muslim organisation.According to learned Addl. Public Prosecutor for all the aforesaidreasons and in view of the statutory mandate under Section 43-D(5)of UAPA, no interference with the orders impugned herein, iswarranted. He, therefore, urged for dismissal of the appeal.12.Considered the submissions advanced. Perused thematerial placed on record. Also perused the authorities relied on. 10Cri Appeal No.542.202113.Nothing incriminating was found in the cellphones seizedfrom the room of the appellant.14.Besides the offences punishable under Sections 120-Band 201 of Indian Penal Code, Charge for offences under Sections 18,20, 38 and 39 of UAPA has been framed against the appellant,meaning thereby the trial has commenced. Twenty-eight witnesseshave so far been examined. For better appreciation, we propose toreproduce Sections of UAPA, the appellant has been charged with:-18. Punishment for conspiracy, etc.—Whoever conspires or attempts to commit, or advocates, abets,advises or incites, directs or knowingly facilitates the commissionof, a terrorist act or any act preparatory to the commission of aterrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a termwhich shall not be less than five years but which may extend toimprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.20. Punishment for being member of terrorist gang ororganisation.—Any person who is a member of a terrorist gang or a terroristorganisation, which is involved in terrorist act, shall bepunishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend toimprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.38. Offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation.—(1) A person, who associates himself, or professes to beassociated, with a terrorist organisation with intention to furtherits activities, commits an offence relating to membership of aterrorist organisation: 11Cri Appeal No.542.2021Provided that this sub-section shall not apply where theperson charged is able to prove—(a) that the organisation was not declared as a terroristorganisation at the time when he became a member or began toprofess to be a member; and(b) that he has not taken part in the activities of theorganisation at any time during its inclusion in the first Scheduleas a terrorist organisation.(2) A person, who commits the offence relating tomembership of a terrorist organisation under sub-section (1),shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceedingten years, or with fine, or with both.39. Offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation-(1) A person commits the offence relating to support given to aterrorist organisation,—(a) who, with intention to further the activity of aterrorist organisation,—(i) invites support for the terrorist organization; and(ii) the support is not or is not restricted to providemoney or other property within the meaning of section40; or(b) who, with intention to further the activity of aterrorist organisation, arranges, manages or assists inarranging or managing a meeting which he knows is—(i) to support the terrorist organization; or(ii) to further the activity of the terroristorganization; or(iii) to be addressed by a person who associatesor professes to be associated with the terroristorganisation; or