Cops Wanted Extended Remand of Mahmudabad to Question him on Foreign Trips, 'Anti-National Activities'

New Delhi: While seeking extended remand of Ashoka University professor Ali Khan Mahmudabad – on May 18 and May 20 – Haryana police brought up his foreign visits and the alleged receipt of “funding” in his bank accounts for what they described as “anti-national” activities.

Court documents related to the two FIRs against Mahmudabad seen by The Wire indicate that Haryana police sought extended custody to access his international travel history and social media communication records.

Police said that while they possessed Mahmudabad’s bank account numbers, they were yet to receive detailed statements of his accounts and his passport to ascertain his foreign travel.

On May 20, Azad Singh, judicial magistrate, 1st class, Sonipat, rejected the police’s application seeking seven days police remand for Mahmudabad and sent the political science professor to judicial custody till May 27. The court had earlier on May 18 granted police two days to question him in custody.

The police on May 20 informed the court that during the two days of remand, they had seized Mahmudabad’s laptop, Aadhaar card and copies of passbooks. His mobile phone and laptop had been sent to a forensic science laboratory.  Police informed the court that since Mahmudabad had disclosed that he has visited 14 countries, they needed to obtain a record of his visits abroad. Records of Mahmudabad’s communication on social media were also yet to be recovered or obtained, the police said.

'Anti-national activities and funding for this purpose in his bank accounts.'

Mahmudabad’s lawyers argued in court that all the details pertaining to his bank accounts had already been provided. The details of his passport had also been provided to the police to ascertain facts about his visits. Mahmudabad informed the court that he would, through his counsel, submit his passport to the investigation officer of the case by 5 pm on May 21.

Mahmudabad, who has a Ph.D from the University of Cambridge, studied Arabic at the University of Damascus in Syria and also travelled widely in the country as well as in Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Yemen. He has an undergraduate degree from Amherst College in the USA.

His lawyers submitted in the court that Mahmudabad was a scholar of Cambridge University and had many friends in other countries.  Therefore, it cannot be presumed that he has any “links with some anti-national elements,” his counsel said.

Mahmudabad’s lawyers informed the court that the bank details of his wife had also been obtained by the police.

Judicial Magistrate Azad Singh said that since the requisite details were yet to be received by the investigating agency and given the fact that the police could seek custody in the first 60 days of investigation as per Section 187 (2) of the BNS, the IO would have the opportunity to move a fresh application for custody when all the details had been received.

On May 18, the assistant public prosecutors appearing for the state government pressing for police custody had argued that it was necessary to further investigate the matter regarding the alleged involvement of Mahmudabad in “anti-national activities and funding for this purpose in his bank accounts.”

Also Read: The Curious Crusade of Renu Bhatia Against Ashoka Professor Mahmudabad

The police also submitted before the court that they needed time to take Mahmudabad to his native village in Sitapur district of Uttar Pradesh to explain the alleged “deep-rooted conspiracy” resulting in the commission of the alleged crime and for the recovery.

Haryana police on May 18 arrested Mahmudabad under charges that point to sedition and for hurting religious sentiments for his comments on India’s Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.

Two FIRs were lodged against Mahmudabad, one on the complaint of a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) office-bearer and the other on the complaint of the Haryana State Commission for Women (HSCW) days after its chairperson had summoned the professor over his social media posts against warmongering following India’s Operation Sindoor against Pakistan.

The associate professor who teaches political science was picked up from his residence in Delhi early on Sunday morning.

Police said that the FIR lodged by the BJP leader was based on what professor Mahmudabad allegedly told him in person. The FIR says that his feelings were hurt by Mahmudabad.

Booked under the serious charge of ‘acts that endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity’

The second FIR was based on a complaint by HSCW Renu Bhatia who accused Mahmudabad of contempt for not appearing before her after she on May 12 summoned him for his Facebook posts.

Mahmudabad was booked under the serious charge of ‘acts that endanger India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity’ under Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita’s Section 152. He was also charged with imputations and assertions prejudicial to national integration; deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class of citizens; and promote or attempt to promote disharmony or feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different groups based on religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community.

The FIR was lodged on the complaint of a BJP leader, Yogesh Jatheri, a village sarpanch from Sonipat and the general secretary of the BJP’s young wing in Haryana.

The second FIR was lodged under sections 353, 79, 152 and 196 (1) of the BNS on the complaint of HSCW chairperson Renu Bhatia. The charges other than BNS 152 pertain to statements conducing to public mischief; act, gesture, or word intended to insult a woman's modesty; promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony.

The criminal action against Mahmudabad came days after Bhatia served him a notice accusing him of disparaging women in uniform, especially Colonel Sofiya Qureshi and wing commander Vyomika Singh, and undermining their role as professional officers in the Indian armed forces.

Bhatia took note of two recent Facebook posts by Mahmubabad following Operation Sindoor, and accused him of misrepresenting facts with repeated references to “genocide,” “dehumanisation” and “hypocrisy,” “thereby attributing malicious communal intent to the government and Indian armed forces, as well as inciting communal distress and attempting to disturb internal peace.”

In two separate Facebook posts, Mahmudabad had called out the “blind bloodlust for war,” raised concerns over the human cost of armed conflict and stressed that the “optics of two women soldiers presenting their findings” after India’s military action was important but “optics must translate to reality on the ground otherwise it’s just hypocrisy.”

After the HSCW on May 12 summoned him for his posts, Mahmudabad said that his remarks had been “completely misunderstood.” In a statement, he said that he had exercised his fundamental right to freedom of thought and speech in order to “promote peace and harmony and to applaud the Indian armed forces for their resolute action, while criticising those who preach hatred and seek to destabilise India.”

In his complaint against Mahmudabad, BJP leader Jatheri accused Mahmubabad of working to incite people against the country at a sensitive time. “Instead of uniting people to fight against external forces at such a sensitive time, this professor kept inciting sentiments and working to benefit external or foreign forces in the name of religion,” said the FIR.

Also Read: The Sole Reason Behind Ali Khan Mahmudabad’s Arrest Is That He Is a Muslim

The HSCW had issued him a suo motu notice saying that his conduct, remarks, representations and statements had raised serious concerns pertaining to the safety, security and dignity of women.

The notice also said that Mahmudabad’s posts raised concerns about attempts at “vilification of national military actions taken and the role of women officers in response to cross-border terrorism,” potential incitement to public unrest, especially targeting communal harmony and undermining national integrity, and violation of dignity and outraging woman’s modesty.

Responding to the notice, Mahmudabad on May 14 said that the Commission failed to highlight how his posts were contrary to the rights of or laws for women. “I am surprised that the Women’s Commission, while overreaching its jurisdiction, has misread and misunderstood my posts to such an extent that they have inverted their meaning. This is a new form of censorship and harassment, which invents issues where there are none,” he said.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.