Mumbai: The arrest of 19-year-old engineering student Ayan Yusuf Shaikh by the Maharashtra Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS) has shocked his family and raised serious concerns from his legal team about the evidence and procedures in the case.Shaikh, a second-year Computer Engineering student at Kalsekar College in Mumbra, was taken into custody on the evening of March 4, 2026. Investigators claim that his social media activity and digital materials suggest exposure to “extremist ideology”.However, Shaikh’s family and legal team argue that the case relies mostly on assumptions rather than solid evidence. They say the circumstances of both the arrest and the following court procedures raise serious questions about due process.For Shaikh’s father, Yusuf Shaikh, the arrest has come as a devastating blow. The 46-year-old said the family had previously faced police inquiries but thought the matter had ended there. About a year earlier, police came to the area looking for Ayan and asked an informer about him. At that time, the family believed that if their son had done nothing wrong, the authorities wouldn’t take any action. Yet, despite that belief, the arrest has left the family in shock. Ayan was just a student, not a known political or public figure.Allegations based on digital materialThe ATS claim is that Shaikh was active on platforms like Telegram, WhatsApp and Instagram, where he supposedly engaged in discussions about political and religious issues. According to his remand application, authorities found several texts on his digital devices that, the ATS says, are ideologically motivated or linked to militant interpretations of Islam.Among the titles listed in the warrant are Kashmir Kifah, a hadith related to Ghazwa, “Revolutionary Resurgence”, “The Method of Establishing Khilafah”, “English Jihad in Islam” and “Fazail-e-Jihad”, a work attributed to Masood Azhar. Authorities argue that possessing or sharing this literature suggests exposure to radical propaganda.The ATS has alleged that Shaikh might have been influenced by or connected to the Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM) and also claims that he distributed literature tied to the banned outfit, while supporting its ideology. However, most of these materials are available online.Shaikh’s legal team disputes the interpretation of this material, arguing that the allegations do not show any clear steps toward committing a crime.‘The entire case is based on assumptions’Advocate Ibrahim Harbat, who represents Shaikh, says the prosecution’s claims heavily depend on speculation about intent rather than proven actions.“It is a matter of rights,” Harbat said. “The police have ignored several important factors. This case will not hold up because it is based on assumptions and presumptions.”Advocate Harbat explained that criminal law typically recognises four stages in committing a crime: intention, preparation, attempt and the act itself. He believes this case focuses almost entirely on what investigators think Shaikh’s intentions might have been.“You know there are four stages of crime: intention, preparation, attempt, and the crime,” the lawyer said. “According to the initial information, the whole matter is based on the belief that ‘the intention was not good.’” He added that investigators must eventually provide documentary evidence to support their claims when they file the chargesheet. “They have to produce the documents at that time because they can file the chargesheet within 90 days or extend it to 180 days,” he said. “Right now, the person has been arrested based on the prosecution’s assumptions.”Concerns over use of UAPAOne major concern raised by Shaikh’s lawyer is the use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), India’s main anti-terror law. This law allows authorities to detain people for extended periods before filing charges and makes getting bail much harder. Harbat argues that using such a law against a young student based mainly on alleged ideological exposure is very problematic. “Using UAPA against a young boy by claiming he has been radicalised is wrong,” the advocate said. He compared Shaikh’s situation to other cases where individuals have spent years in prison awaiting trial while prosecutors work to prove intent.Also read: Over 10,000 Persons Arrested Under UAPA But Only 335 Convictions Between 2019-23“The same case under which Umar Khalid suffers is based only on intent, and the prosecution lacks strong evidence proving that his intention was malicious,” Advocate Ibrahim said. “That’s why people face long incarceration.”Harbat also referred to judicial comments in K.A. Najeeb vs State of Kerala, where the Kerala High Court addressed the issue of long detentions under anti-terror laws, a ruling later upheld by the Supreme Court of India.“The courts noted that prolonged incarceration shouldn’t happen in UAPA cases because special courts deal with such matters,” Harbat said, adding, “Yet, even then, people are suffering.”In the case of Shaikh, the legal battle is not just about the outcome of the case but also the impact of the arrest on his future.“In my opinion, this boy will suffer,” Harbat said. “He is only 19 or 20, a second-year engineering student, and he has been arrested. His entire life has been ruined.”He pointed out that even if the allegations were ultimately proven, the years spent in prison during the investigation and trial could derail the young man’s life.“For example, the maximum punishment for the charges against him is ten years,” the advocate said. “If he is convicted and returns after ten years, he won’t have anything left. He will have wasted his golden years.”According to him, such results can create deeper social problems instead of solving them. “He will likely turn to crime, and that is alarming,” harbat said.Questions about investigative credibilityHarbat also raised concerns about the credibility of anti-terror investigations, citing recent judicial criticism of investigative agencies. “Moreover, the conviction rate of these agencies is quite low,” he said.He referred to comments made by the Bombay High Court in the 7/11 Mumbai train blasts case, where several convictions were overturned, and the court criticised aspects of the investigation. “Recently, the [Mumbai] High Court criticised state agencies like the ATS in the 7/11 case,” Ibrahim said. “It pointed out how fake evidence was gathered and how confessions were obtained forcefully, which harmed the ATS’s credibility.”Also read: 7/11 Acquittals | ‘The Case Walked Out of My Life, But I was Unable to Walk Out of the Case’: Abdul Shaikh“After that, if the agency makes arrests, people will obviously question their actions,” he added.The circumstances of Shaikh’s first court appearance have also attracted attention from his legal team. After his arrest, he was supposed to be presented before the sessions court. However, when his defence team arrived, they found that the presiding judge was not in the courtroom.According to the defence lawyers, they later received a call saying that the hearing would take place at the judge’s residence instead. The hearing was held in the parking area of the judge’s home, a situation that his lawyers say limited their ability to participate. Four advocates gathered to represent Shaikh, but they say the unusual setting allowed for only limited discussion.During the hearing, the defence reportedly agreed to one day of police custody, while investigators requested fourteen days. Members of the legal team say they waited for hours without clear communication about the hearing’s start time or how it would proceed.A case that raises larger questionsAs the investigation continues, Shaikh remains in custody while his legal team prepares to challenge the allegations in court. For the lawyers, the main issue is not only if the charges will hold up in court but also if the process respects the rights of the accused. As Ibrahim puts it, the coming months will show whether investigators can produce evidence that goes beyond suspicion and assumption or whether the case will fall apart under legal scrutiny.Nishtha Sood is a researcher and journalist with a degree in Politics and International Relations from SOAS, University of London, has been working with Dr Abdul Wahid Shaikh and documenting cases of custodial torture and human rights abuses in India since 2017.