Allowing an appeal against the Special Court’s refusal of bail, the Delhi High Court has granted UAPA bail to a man accused by the National Investigation Agency of conspiring to channel funds from Saudi Arabia to a terror module linked to an ISIS affiliate, after more than five years in custody; the detailed order is awaited and the allegations are yet to be tested at trial.
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Thursday granted bail to Mohd. Shahzad Kamal, an accused in a case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), who is alleged to be an operative of Harkat-ul-Harb-e-Islam, an ISIS affiliate [Mohd. Shahzad Kamal v. NIA].
A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj allowed the appeal filed by Kamal against the Special Court’s order of May 29, 2024, which had denied him bail. Only the operative result was pronounced, and the detailed order, including the conditions of bail, is awaited.
Background of the case
Kamal has been in custody since August 31, 2021, and charges under the UAPA were framed against him on August 30, 2022. According to the NIA, he is accused of being involved in a conspiracy to arrange and channelise terror funds from Saudi Arabia to support the activities of the module in India.
What the NIA alleges
The agency’s case is that its investigation revealed that Kamal provided funds on multiple occasions between February 2017 and January 2019 to co-accused Mohd. Absar in order to fund the terrorist activities of the group. It further alleges that he was in constant touch with another co-accused, Md. Saqib, through Facebook and WhatsApp, and that retrieved conversations between them discuss funds to be transferred or provided by Kamal for what the agency describes as jihadi purposes.
The NIA also alleges that the chats show Kamal supporting Tehreek-e-Azadi Jammu Kashmir and that he was radicalised by the ideology of the Harkat-ul-Harb-e-Islam group. These are allegations of the prosecution, which Kamal has not accepted and which have not been proved.
The defence’s plea
Seeking bail, Kamal argued that the charge sheet and the documents on record contain no material that can be converted into legal evidence against him at trial. His case was that, if there is no such material, the trial can end in only one way, an acquittal, so his continued custody serves no purpose. The Bench’s reasons will be known only when the detailed order is available.
Why The UAPA Bail Order Matters
The decision adds to a line of recent Delhi High Court rulings on bail under the UAPA for accused who have spent years in custody while trials remain pending. Bail has been granted here at the appellate stage, and the Court has not recorded any finding on guilt, so the trial will continue in the Special Court.
Case Title: Mohd. Shahzad Kamal v. NIA
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj, Delhi High Court
Date of Order: October 1, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Jawahar Raja, Archit Krishna, Tamanna Pankaj, Aditi Saraswat, Nitai Hinduja, Ashutosh Shukla, Ishan Goel and Harshil Jain for the appellant; Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, with Advocates Jatin, Neha Tiwari, Abhay Pratap Semwal and Avinash Kumar, for the NIA