New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted bail to two accused persons who have remained in custody for nearly twelve years in a terror conspiracy case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, holding that their continued incarceration, coupled with the extremely slow progress of trial, was grossly violative of the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing Special Leave Petitions filed by Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, assailing a common judgment of the Delhi High Court which had dismissed their appeals under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, against rejection of their bail applications by the trial court under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The petitioners are in custody in connection with an FIR registered in 2011 at the Special Cell, New Delhi, for offences under Sections 471, 489B, 489C and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Sections 17, 18, 18A, 18B, 19 and 20 of the UAPA, Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, and Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967.
The prosecution's case traces back to the arrest of a Pakistani national in November 2011, whose disclosures allegedly led investigators to a 'Rajasthan Module' of the Indian Mujahideen. Searches conducted at the petitioners' premises in Jodhpur and Jaipur resulted in the recovery of gunpowder, ammonium nitrate, detonators and IED-making materials, giving rise to two separate FIRs registered by the Rajasthan Anti-Terrorism Squad in 2014, in addition to the Delhi FIR.
The Court noted that the petitioners had already been convicted in the Jaipur case and sentenced to terms including ten years' rigorous imprisonment and, in respect of certain offences, life imprisonment, but that their sentences had since been suspended by the High Court of Rajasthan. They had also been granted bail in the Jodhpur case, where trial is still pending. Their continued incarceration was thus solely on account of the Delhi FIR.
Examining the status of the Delhi trial through the e-Courts Services Portal, the Bench recorded that out of 197 prosecution witnesses proposed to be examined, only two had been examined between January 2025 and the date of hearing, one of them only in part, with examination of the 68th prosecution witness still continuing.
“The progress of the trial has been extremely slow, and there appears to be no prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future.”
The Court also took note that a co-accused, Mohd. Maroof, facing trial along with the petitioners, had already been enlarged on bail, and that as many as 25 accused persons had been arrested in the case as per the State's counter-affidavit.
“Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances... coupled with the slow progress of trial, we feel that the continued incarceration of the petitioners in this case is grossly violative of the right to liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Accordingly, the Court directed that the petitioners be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court, subject to their not being required in any other case. It clarified that the observations made were confined to the adjudication of the bail petitions and would not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case pending before the trial court.
The Court further directed that the petitioners shall continue to cooperate with the trial, and left it open to the prosecution to approach the Court for appropriate orders in the event the petitioners are found to be delaying the trial, failing to cooperate, or otherwise misusing the liberty granted to them.
The Special Leave Petitions and pending applications were accordingly disposed of.
Appearances: For Petitioner(s): Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Adv.; Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv.; Ms. Saloni Ambasta, Adv.; Mr. Fahad M. Khan, Adv.; Mr. Nilesh Jain, Adv.; Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Anil Kaushik, A.S.G.; Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR; Mr. Pranjal Singh, Adv.; Ms. Alka Aggarwal, Adv.; Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv.; Mr. Kartikay Asthana, Adv.
Case Title: Mohd. Saquib Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl.) No. 11369/2026 with Waqar Azhar v. State (NCT of Delhi), SLP (Crl.) No. 11414/2026
