New Delhi : The Delhi High Court has denied bail to Dr Abdul Rehman alias Dr. Brave, an ophthalmologist and MS Ramaiah Medical College alumnus, arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for alleged links to terrorist group ISIS.
A division bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar ruled that the doctor’s medical qualifications could not be grounds for a clean chit, despite his profession and four years and eight months of incarceration.
“He is an MD from MS Ramaiah Medical College, but this does not give him a clean chit,” the bench noted.
NIA’s Allegations and Evidence
According to the NIA:
- Videos linked to ISIS, Osama Bin Laden, and other extremist content were recovered from the accused’s phone.
- Searches at his residence revealed a laser guide and other items allegedly usable in constructing a model rocket launcher.
- The agency also flagged his travel to Syria in 2013, alleging he sustained a bullet injury during the visit—claims the defense denied, asserting the trip was for humanitarian work with Doctors Without Borders.
Defense Claims and Court Response
Advocate Pankaj, appearing for Dr. Rehman, argued:
- The oscilloscope found at his home was consistent with his profession and was not a laser guide, as alleged.
- The presence of such materials was speculative and not unique, comparable to what could be found in homes of other professionals.
- The witness statements used by NIA came from individuals not being prosecuted in the case.
The defense cited the Supreme Court ruling in Vernon v. State of Maharashtra, arguing that charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, were not applicable.
The Court acknowledged a three-month delay between seizure and production of key evidence, suggesting possible tampering, but said this did not sufficiently weaken the prosecution’s case to warrant bail.
Court’s Decision and Next Steps
The bench ultimately rejected the bail plea, emphasizing that the severity of charges and recovered materials outweighed arguments based on professional background or pre-trial detention length.
However, the Court granted the accused liberty to:
- Withdraw the current appeal and pursue appropriate remedies elsewhere, or
- Let the Court reserve judgment on the ongoing appeal.
In response, the defense requested that the main DRDO witness be examined before proceeding further.
The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on September 25, 2025.
