The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026) asked the Delhi Police to respond to bail pleas filed by two men accused of operating the Rajasthan module of the banned outfit Indian Mujahideen. The accused, who have been in custody for 12 years, are challenging a Delhi High Court order denying them bail.
The Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, which the High Court had relied on while rejecting the bail pleas of these two men, has since been referred to a larger Bench for consideration, the Bench noted.
This is the latest in a series of bail hearings at the Supreme Court that spotlight the legal debate between national security concerns and Constitutional safeguards for individual liberty, especially in cases under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
‘Reasoned order’
The accused’s counsel informed a Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi that the two men had been in custody since March 2014, when they were arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell and charged under various provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that the High Court’s order refusing bail was a “reasoned” one and was consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its January 5 judgment in the Delhi riots conspiracy case involving Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam. The ruling had held that the stringent restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would prevail over considerations such as prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
The Bench, however, pointed out that the January 5 judgment had subsequently been referred to a larger Bench for consideration.
“What reasoned order? The judgment relied upon has since been referred to a larger Bench... You will have to file a counter-affidavit,” Justice Bagchi said in his oral remarks.
Differing views within SC
On May 22, while hearing the bail pleas of Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale had asked Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to constitute a larger Bench to determine how the Supreme Court’s three-judge Bench decision in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) ought to be applied in cases under the UAPA involving prolonged incarceration and delays in trial. It had pointed out that an “authoritative resolution” of the legal position was needed.
In Najeeb , the top court had recognised that prolonged incarceration and delay in the commencement or conclusion of trial could justify the grant of bail notwithstanding the stringent curbs contained in anti-terror statutes.
The reference was prompted by differing views expressed by coordinate Benches over bail jurisprudence under the UAPA. Just days earlier, a Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had disagreed with the January 5 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State authored by Justice Kumar, observing that the ruling had adopted an unduly restrictive approach to the grant of bail under the anti-terror law.
Najeeb will apply with ‘full force’
Accordingly, Justice Bagchi on Wednesday observed that the Najeeb precedent would apply with “full force” in the present case, given the length of custody undergone by the accused.
“The K.A. Najeeb case will apply with all force here, subject to the way it has been interpreted in the Gulfisha Fatima case. You will have to file a counter,” he said.
The Bench directed the Delhi Police to file its counter-affidavit by July 20 and listed the matter for further hearing on July 27.
‘Do not deserve to be released’
On April 24, the High Court had rejected the bail pleas of Mr. Ansari and Mr. Azhar, holding that they were active members of the banned terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen and key operatives involved in running its Rajasthan module. The court had further observed that they maintained links with the outfit’s leadership both in India and Pakistan.
“The manner in which the appellants have been wholly entrenched in the activities of the Indian Mujahideen leaves no manner of doubt that, in order to prevent them from indulging in anti-national and terrorist activities, and considering the fact that they pose a flight risk and could also influence witnesses yet to depose in the case, they do not deserve to be released on bail,” a Bench headed by Justice Prathiba M. Singh had observed.
In their petitions, the two accused contended that a similarly placed co-accused had already been granted bail. They also pointed to the fact that they had spent nearly 12 years in custody awaiting the conclusion of the trial.
The case traces its origins to November 2011, when the police apprehended an alleged member of the Indian Mujahideen. According to the Delhi Police, information gathered during the investigation led to the identification of several other suspects, culminating in the arrest of 18 persons and the recovery of explosives,…
Read the full article at The Hindu →
India