LexStreak
Read free →
Madras High Court· 27 August 2026

Does Section 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act apply to support given to a terrorist organisation where no material shows membership of it?

MOHAMED THALHA v. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY, THE CHIEF INVESTIGATION
CRL A.328/2025 · 2026:MHC:3496 · CRL A No. 328 of 2025
Coram: Justice Anita Sumanth · Justice Sunder Mohan
🔖 Save this judgment🔔 Follow s.43D(5) Unlawful Activities (Pr…📬 Get today's judgments
View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.
Answer

Section 39 applies to support given to a terrorist organisation even where no material shows membership of it.

Yes. Section 39 applies to support given to a terrorist organisation even where no material shows membership of it. Sections 38 and 39 relate respectively to holding membership of a terrorist organisation and to support given to one; there was no material to show membership, but the overt act prima facie attributable to the appellant was logistical support for the commission of the terror act. (¶37)

Headnote

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — ss.15, 16, 18, 38, 39, 43D(5) — Bail — Prima facie true — Logistical support — Terror conspiracy — Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.43D(5) — Bail — Reasonable grounds for believing the accusation prima facie true — Held: Where the material prima facie shows that the accused was part of the conspiracy and supplied the vehicle used in the blast, the bar on bail operates. (¶30, 36) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.39 — Support to a terrorist organisation — Membership not required — Held further: Absence of material showing membership of a proscribed organisation does not displace s.39, which is attracted by support in the form of logistical assistance. (¶37) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 — s.15 — Terrorist act — Intention to strike terror — Held further: An intention to re-create an earlier bomb blast and to attack places of worship falls prima facie within a terrorist act. Appeal dismissed. (¶34, 44)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 37Sections 38 and 39 relate to holding of membership in a terrorist organization and support given to terrorist organization. There is no material on record to show that the appellant was a member of the proscribed terrorist organization. However, Section 39 relates to support given to a terrorist organization and in light of the discussion in the paragraphs supra, the overt act prima facie attributable to the appellant relates to logistical support for the commission of the terror act.
Acts & Sections
s.43D(5) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.15 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.16 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.18 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.38 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967s.39 Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MOHAMED THALHA v. THE UNION OF INDIA REP BY, THE CHIEF INVESTIGATION — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment
Is bail barred under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act where reasonable grounds exist for believing the accusation is prima facie true?Does an intention to strike terror by using explosive substances against places of worship amount to a terrorist act under Section 15?Do decisions in which the accused's overt act was distinguishable avail an accused under Section 43D(5)?
Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections