The Supreme Court of India has called upon the Delhi Police to respond to bail applications submitted by two individuals accused of being Indian Mujahideen operatives. These individuals have been detained for over 12 years in connection to a terror-related case involving an alleged illegal arms and ammunition factory in Delhi. A judicial bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi has issued a notice regarding the pleas filed by Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar.
In a significant development, the Court indicated that the principles established in the case of Gulfisha Fatima v. State, a Supreme Court ruling from January 2026 which granted bail to certain accused in the Delhi riots case but denied it to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, would be applicable to the current case. During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, representing the Delhi Police, argued that the High Court’s order denying bail was well-reasoned and aligned with the Gulfisha Fatima judgment.
However, the Supreme Court expressed skepticism about this claim. “What reasoned order? The judgment referred to is pending for reference. What are you saying? Najeeb (KA Najeeb judgment, which recognized trial delays as a valid ground for bail in UAPA cases) will apply with all force here, subject to its interpretation in Gulfisha (Umar Khalid’s case). You will have to file a counter,” remarked the Court.
This commentary from Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi is noteworthy as the legal framework for granting bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) is currently under review by a larger Supreme Court bench. Recently, Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale granted interim bail to Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, while referring questions about UAPA bail jurisprudence to a larger Bench for consideration.
Previously, Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, expressed concerns about the Supreme Court ruling in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, particularly regarding the denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The Nagarathna Bench suggested that the decision conflicted with the principles from the KA Najeeb case, which posited that extended trial durations warrant bail irrespective of stringent UAPA bail conditions.
More Read
Unlike the Gulfisha Fatima judgment, which emphasized that trial delays alone are insufficient grounds for bail in UAPA cases, the Court noted that broader constitutional questions regarding personal liberty under Article 21, amidst stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, are pending review by a larger Bench.
The case in question stems from a First Information Report (FIR) filed by the Delhi Police Special Cell after the arrest of alleged Indian Mujahideen member Mohd Quateel Siddiqui in November 2011. The investigation purportedly uncovered a larger conspiracy involving various members of the banned group, leading to multiple arrests across different states. Ansari and Azhar were apprehended in March 2014 following the arrest of Pakistani national Zia-ur-Rehman alias Waqas, who allegedly identified them during his interrogation. The prosecution asserts that Ansari and Azhar were affiliated with the Rajasthan module of the Indian Mujahideen and were preparing for terrorist activities.
In April, the Delhi High Court denied bail to the accused despite their lengthy detention. Justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain determined that the allegations, along with material evidence and their conviction in a related Rajasthan case, warranted the invocation of the bail bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The High Court also referenced the Gulfisha Fatima ruling to assert that mere prolonged incarceration does not automatically justify bail.
