The Supreme Court has issued notice to the Delhi Police on bail petitions filed by two alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives who have remained in judicial custody for more than 12 years while facing prosecution under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The Bench of Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice Vipul M Pancholi on Wednesday directed the Delhi Police to file its counter-affidavit by July 20 and posted the matter for further hearing in July.
The order was passed on appeals filed by Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, challenging a Delhi High Court judgment, which refused them bail on April 24, 2026. The accused were arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell in March 2014 and have been charged under Sections 18, 18A, 19 and 20 of the UAPA for their alleged association with the banned terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen.
According to the prosecution, they were linked to the outfit’s Rajasthan module and were allegedly involved in preparations for terrorist activities. Their names allegedly surfaced during the investigation following the arrest of Pakistani national Zia-ur-Rehman alias Waqas. The case traces its origins to a 2011 investigation that led to the arrest of several persons and the recovery of explosives, chemicals, arms and ammunition.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, appearing for the Delhi Police, argued that the Delhi High Court had passed a reasoned order while rejecting bail and had correctly relied upon the Supreme Court’s January 2026 judgment in the Delhi riots conspiracy case involving Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
The High Court had held that the allegations against the accused, the material allegedly recovered from them and their conviction in a connected Rajasthan case attracted the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The Supreme Court, however, noted that the January 2026 ruling relied upon by the High Court has subsequently been referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration. The Bench observed that the legal principles governing bail in UAPA cases are presently under judicial examination and questioned the continued reliance on a judgment that is now under reference.
The Court indicated that the principles laid down in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, which recognised prolonged incarceration and delay in trial as relevant grounds for grant of bail despite stringent statutory restrictions, would apply to the present case, subject to the manner in which those principles were interpreted in subsequent judgments. The Bench orally remarked that the Najeeb precedent would operate with full force in the present matter considering the length of custody undergone by the accused.
The case forms part of a broader constitutional debate regarding the balance between national security concerns and the protection of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The issue has gained significance after differing views emerged from coordinate Benches of the Supreme Court on the scope of bail under the UAPA where trials are delayed for extended periods.
Last month, while granting interim bail to Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, another Bench of the Supreme Court referred questions relating to UAPA bail jurisprudence to a larger Bench, seeking an authoritative determination on how the principles laid down in K.A. Najeeb should be applied in cases involving prolonged incarceration. The reference followed concerns expressed in separate proceedings that certain later judgments may have adopted a more restrictive approach towards bail under anti-terror legislation.
The petitioners have contended that they have spent nearly 12 years in custody awaiting completion of trial and that the prosecution has cited around 600 witnesses, making the conclusion of proceedings unlikely in the near future. They have also relied on the fact that a similarly placed co-accused has already been granted bail.
While rejecting their bail pleas earlier this year, the Delhi High Court had observed that the accused were allegedly active members of Indian Mujahideen with links to the organisation’s leadership in India and Pakistan. The High Court further held that they posed a flight risk and could potentially influence witnesses who are yet to depose in the trial.
The Supreme Court will now examine their challenge after receiving the response of the Delhi Police, with the matter expected to raise important questions concerning prolonged incarceration, fair trial rights and the interpretation of bail restrictions under the UAPA.
The post Supreme Court seeks Delhi Police response on bail pleas of Indian Mujahideen operatives in custody for over 12 years appeared first on India Legal.