Home
Videos
Login
Profile
The Supreme Court sought the Delhi Police’s response to bail pleas filed by alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, who have spent more than 12 years in custody in a Delhi terror conspiracy case
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the Delhi Police’s response to bail pleas filed by two alleged operatives of the banned terrorist organisation Indian Mujahideen, who have spent more than 12 years in custody in connection with a terror conspiracy case linked to an alleged illegal arms and ammunition factory in Delhi.
The Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice on the pleas filed by Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar.
The case pertains to an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell following the arrest of alleged Indian Mujahideen member Mohd. Quateel Siddiqui in November 2011. According to the prosecution, the investigation subsequently uncovered a larger conspiracy involving members of the banned outfit and led to arrests across multiple States.
Ansari and Azhar were arrested in March 2014 after the arrest of Pakistani national Zia-ur-Rehman alias Waqas, who allegedly disclosed their names during interrogation. The prosecution alleges that the duo were part of the Rajasthan module of Indian Mujahideen and were involved in preparations for terrorist attacks.
During the hearing, counsel appearing for the accused highlighted the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners, submitting, “There is incarceration for more than 12 years.”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kaushik, appearing for the Delhi Police, opposed the pleas and submitted that the Delhi High Court had passed a well-reasoned order while refusing bail. “It is a well reasoned order,” the ASG said, adding that the High Court had applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima v. State.
The Bench, however, expressed reservations about the submission. “What reasoned order? Judgment referred to is pending for reference. What are you saying? Najeeb will apply with all force here, subject to the way it has been interpreted in Gulfisha. You will have to file a counter,” the Court remarked.
The Bench’s observations assume significance because the legal principles governing bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) are currently under consideration by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.
In January 2026, in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, the Supreme Court granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots conspiracy case but declined relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The judgment held that delay in trial cannot, by itself, become a ground for bail in UAPA cases and that courts must also consider factors such as the nature of allegations, the strength of the prosecution’s case and the stage of the trial.
However, a separate Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, expressed reservations about the denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, observing that the ruling appeared to conflict with the principles laid down in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb.
In K.A. Najeeb, the Supreme Court held that prolonged delays in trial could justify the grant of bail notwithstanding the stringent restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
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, noting that the issue raised a broader constitutional question concerning the application of Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty in cases where Parliament has imposed stringent restrictions on bail.
Against this backdrop, the Court on Wednesday indicated that the principles laid down in K.A. Najeeb would apply “with all force” to the present case, subject to the manner in which they were interpreted in Gulfisha Fatima, and directed the Delhi Police to file its response to the bail pleas.
Notably, in April this year, the High Court had refused to grant bail to two accused allegedly involved in planning a terrorist attack in the national capital, holding that prolonged incarceration by itself cannot be a standalone ground for relief under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), particularly when the material on record indicates a continuing threat.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Madhu Jain had dismissed the appeals filed by Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, upholding the trial court’s decision to deny bail. The Court emphasised that under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accusations are not prima facie true, a threshold that was not met in the present case.
“In the opinion of this Court, the prayer for parity would not be tenable inasmuch as the nature of the material, which was recovered from Mohd. Maroof, who has been released on bail by this Court and the present two Appellants is distinct and different. In case of the Appellants, substantial amount of damaging material such as chemicals, IEDs, electronic gadgets, etc. were recovered which would show that they were in the process of preparing for a terror attack in the country. The seizure and recovery of such explosives, electronic devices, capability of one of them of being trained to even making poison and trained for making bombs distinguishes the case of Mohd. Maroof from the Appellants”, the Court observed.
Case Title: Mohd. Saquib Ansari v. State NCT of Delhi
Bench: Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi
Hearing Date: June 17, 2026
Leave a Reply