The Supreme Court sought Delhi Police’s response on bail pleas filed by two alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives detained for over 12 years in a terrorism conspiracy case linked to an alleged illegal arms manufacturing setup in Delhi.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from Delhi Police in connection with bail pleas moved by two alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives, who have been in custody for more than 12 years in a terrorism conspiracy case tied to an alleged illegal arms and ammunition manufacturing set-up in Delhi.
A Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice on petitions filed by Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar.
During the hearing, the Court indicated that the approach laid down in Gulfisha Fatima v. State the Supreme Court’s January 2026 decision that granted bail to five accused in the Delhi riots while denying relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam may be relevant for deciding the present matter.
Appearing for Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik submitted that the Delhi High Court had passed a reasoned order rejecting bail after applying the principles in Gulfisha Fatima. The Bench, however, appeared not satisfied with the submission.
While referring to the landmark KA Najeeb ruling, the Court orally observed,
“What reasoned order? The 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 noted that the KA Najeeb decision recognised prolonged delay in trial as a permissible ground for granting bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The Bench’s comments are being seen as significant because a larger Bench of the Supreme Court is currently examining the legal framework for bail under the UAPA.
Last month, while granting interim bail to Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale referred key questions relating to UAPA bail jurisprudence to a larger Bench. The reference followed observations by another Bench comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, where concerns were raised about the Gulfisha Fatima ruling particularly the denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
According to the observations in that matter, the denial of bail appeared inconsistent with the principles in KA Najeeb, which held that extended incarceration and delays in trial could justify bail even with the stringent restrictions under the UAPA. In contrast, Gulfisha Fatima adopted a more conditional approach, stating that delay by itself cannot be treated as a standalone ground for bail. Courts, it said, must also factor in the seriousness of allegations, the strength of the prosecution’s case, and the stage of proceedings.
The Supreme Court has further indicated that the question goes beyond evaluating the correctness of any one judgment and instead raises a broader constitutional issue about how Article 21’s protection of personal liberty interacts with Parliament’s strict bail constraints under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. This issue is currently pending before a larger Bench.
Against this background, on Wednesday the Court observed that KA Najeeb would apply “with all force” in the present case, subject to how it is interpreted in Gulfisha Fatima.
The dispute arises from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell after the arrest of alleged Indian Mujahideen member Mohd Quateel Siddiqui in November 2011. The prosecution case is that the investigation uncovered a wider conspiracy involving members of the banned organisation and resulted in arrests in multiple States.
Ansari and Azhar were arrested in March 2014 after Pakistani national Zia-ur-Rehman, also known as Waqas, allegedly named them during interrogation. The prosecution alleges that they were part of the Rajasthan module of Indian Mujahideen and were involved in planning terrorist attacks.
Earlier, in April this year, the Delhi High Court rejected their bail despite their prolonged detention. A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain held that the allegations against the accused, the material allegedly recovered from them, and their conviction in a linked Rajasthan case attracted the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The High Court also relied on Gulfisha Fatima to rule that extended incarceration alone was not sufficient to justify bail in the circumstances.
Aggrieved by the High Court’s decision, Ansari and Azhar then approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.