“The prosecution is not responsible for the alleged delay.” With that finding the Calcutta High Court has refused UAPA bail to alleged ISIS recruiter Md. Saddam, even though only three of 52 witnesses have been examined after more than three years in custody.
Kolkata: The Calcutta High Court has dismissed a criminal appeal seeking bail by a man the National Investigation Agency (NIA) accuses of being an active ISIS operative involved in radicalising and recruiting youths, holding that the accusations appear prima facie true at this stage and that the bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act has not been displaced by delay [Md. Saddam @ Mohammad Saddam @ Saddam Mallik @ Abdul Mallick v. Union of India].
The judgment, reserved on September 30 and delivered on November 13, 2026, came from a Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray. Justice Apurba Sinha Ray authored it.
A delay the accused’s own application prolonged
Turning to the length of the trial, the Bench noted that charges were framed in August 2025 and that the appellant’s discharge application, though legally open to him, had stalled the examination of witnesses. Given the nature of the case, it said, 52 witnesses was not unreasonable, and the court could not hold a mini-trial at the bail stage.
“The prosecution is not responsible for the alleged delay. The discharge application, although legal, consumed much time and contributed to prolonging the trial, and for which we cannot blame the prosecution. However, we can say that the case has not reached the melting point as indicated in K.A. Najeeb’s case.”
What the appellant argued
Senior Advocate Deep Chaim Kabir submitted that the appellant had been in custody for more than three years and four months, that there were 52 charge-sheet witnesses of whom only three had been examined, and that there was no chance of the trial ending soon. He relied on Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, argued that grounds of arrest were not communicated at the relevant time, and contended that the allegations were essentially that the appellant was an ISIS sympathiser in possession of images and videos.
Citing Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, he argued that mere possession of literature, photographs or videos, or mere association with or support for a terrorist organisation, is not an offence without more. He also questioned why another person, from whose phone similar material was recovered, had been cited as a prosecution witness rather than an accused.
The NIA’s case against him
Special Public Prosecutors A.K. Maity and Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee appeared for the Union. The prosecution alleged that the appellant was not a passive sympathiser but an active operative who radicalised Muslim youths, circulated ISIS propaganda, administered clandestine Telegram groups and was in contact, through virtual numbers, with persons abroad about sending recruits for militant activity. It relied on forensic extraction reports of his devices and on Gurwinder Singh, Gulfisha Fatima and Watali. These remain allegations to be proved at trial.
Overt acts, not mere possession
The Bench found that the forensic material went beyond mere possession of literature and indicated overt acts. On the witness cited by the prosecution, it relied on his statement under Section 164 CrPC, which said he was a student who met the appellant at a nearby mosque in Howrah and was sent the material with instructions to keep it secret. The Court held:
“In our considered view, the applicant and Farhan do not stand on the same footing. Such action of the applicant lends support to the prosecution case that there was a continuous encouragement of the applicant from the persons of foreign origin to collect youth from India who will be interested in doing all these extremist operations in India and abroad.”
Observing that “the matter concerns security of the country” and that there was sufficient material indicating overt acts, the Court said it was “constrained to reject the prayer for bail” and dismissed CRA (DB) 324 of 2025.
The findings are prima facie and confined to bail. The allegations remain untested at trial, the High Court has expressed no final view on guilt, and the appellant is presumed innocent until proved otherwise.
Why the judgment matters
Since K.A. Najeeb, long custody and slow trials have been the main route to bail for UAPA accused despite the Section 43D(5) bar. The judgment shows that the route depends on who caused the delay: where the time has gone on the accused’s own discharge application and the witness list is proportionate to a technical, electronic-evidence case, courts may find the “melting point” not yet reached.
It also applies the Thwaha Fasal line narrowly. Possession of extremist material alone is not an offence, but the Bench treated alleged forwarding of such material to a student, with secrecy instructions, and contacts with persons abroad as indications of active participation sufficient at the bail stage.
Case Title: Md. Saddam @ Mohammad Saddam @ Saddam Mallik @ Abdul Mallick v. Union of India [CRA (DB) 324 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, Calcutta High Court
Date of Judgment: November 13, 2026 (CAV on September 30, 2026)
For Appellant: Senior Advocate Deep Chaim Kabir with Advocate M.H. Chowdhury
For Union of India: Special PPs A.K. Maity and Bhaskar Prasad Banerjee with Advocates Debayan Sen and Debasish Tandon