BailNow.in News Snacks

Delhi High Court Grants Bail to UAPA Accused After 8 Years in Jail

Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja cites prolonged detention and slow trial progress.

Court rules that peripheral role allegations and incomplete witness examination do not justify continued custody.

By Legal Reporter

New Delhi: October 02, 2026:

The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Saqib, an accused in a UAPA case linked to the alleged pro-ISIS group Harkat-ul-Harb-E-Islam, after nearly eight years in custody. The court emphasized that prolonged incarceration without trial completion violates constitutional rights, noting that only 40 of 120 prosecution witnesses had been examined so far.

Case Background

• Accused: Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar.
• Arrest Date: December 26, 2018.
• Charges: Sections of IPC (120B, 121, 121A, 122), UAPA (17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, 39), and Explosive Substances Act.
• Allegations:
  • Member of Harkat-ul-Harb-E-Islam, a group allegedly propagating ISIS and Jaish-e-Mohammed ideology.
  • Accused of facilitating contacts for weapons procurement in Uttar Pradesh.
  • Allegedly travelled to Jammu & Kashmir in 2017 and 2018 to establish militant links.
• Evidence: Witness statements, call data records, electronic material, and recoveries from residence.

Court’s Reasoning

• Prolonged Custody: Saqib spent nearly 8 years in jail without trial conclusion.
• Witness Examination: Only 40 of 120 witnesses examined; NIA dropped 39, but trial still unlikely to end soon.
• Peripheral Role: Court noted allegations placed him at best on the periphery, not as a core conspirator.
• Constitutional Rights: Bail granted under Article 21 (right to liberty and speedy trial), balancing against UAPA’s strict bail restrictions.

Legal Significance

• Precedent: Reinforces Supreme Court’s stance in K.A. Najeeb v. Union of India (2021) that prolonged incarceration can justify bail even under UAPA.
• Human Rights: Highlights judiciary’s role in preventing indefinite pre-trial detention.
• Trial Delays: Signals concern over systemic delays in terrorism-related prosecutions.

FAQs

Q1: Why was bail granted despite UAPA restrictions?

Because Saqib had already spent 8 years in custody and the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, violating his constitutional right to liberty.

Q2: What is UAPA?

The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 is India’s anti-terror law, imposing strict bail conditions for those accused of terrorism-related offences.

Q3: What role was Saqib alleged to have played?

He was accused of facilitating contacts for weapons and traveling to Kashmir to meet militants, but the court found his role peripheral.

Q4: Does this mean he is acquitted?

No. Bail only allows release from custody during trial; charges remain pending.

Q5: Why is this case significant?

It underscores the judiciary’s balancing act between national security concerns and individual rights, especially in cases of prolonged incarceration.

This ruling is a landmark in UAPA jurisprudence, showing that courts will intervene when trials drag on for years, ensuring that constitutional guarantees of liberty and speedy trial are not undermined by indefinite detention.