Delhi High Court Denies Bail in UAPA Case Despite 12-Year Custody, Cites Prima Facie Evidence and Security Risk

April 28, 2026 : The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed appeals filed by Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar seeking bail in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The Court held that prolonged incarceration of nearly twelve years does not, by itself, justify bail where there exists prima facie material and a continuing risk of involvement in terrorist activities.

The appeals were preferred under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging orders of the trial court rejecting bail. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants were members of the banned outfit Indian Mujahideen, linked to operatives such as Riyaz Bhatkal and Tehsin Akhtar, and were involved in procuring explosives, using forged identities, and planning terrorist acts. Recoveries included explosive substances, chemicals, and electronic devices.

On the plea of parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail, the Court rejected the argument, noting material differences in the nature of recoveries. It observed that while the co-accused was linked only to digital material, the present appellants were allegedly found in possession of explosive substances, making their role more serious.

The Court also placed weight on the appellants’ prior conviction in the Jaipur case under the UAPA, the Explosive Substances Act, and the IPC. It held that suspension of sentence does not dilute the evidentiary value of conviction at the stage of bail and that such findings strengthen the prima facie case under Section 43D(5) UAPA.

Reiterating the restrictive bail framework under UAPA, the Court relied on National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab to emphasise that bail must be denied where accusations appear prima facie true. It found that the material on record satisfied this threshold.

Addressing the argument of prolonged incarceration, the Court acknowledged Article 21 concerns but relied on Gulfisha Fatima v. State to hold that delay alone does not override statutory restrictions in terrorism cases and only warrants closer scrutiny. Considering the gravity of allegations, prior conviction, and risk factors, the Court concluded that custody duration alone was insufficient to grant bail.

Finally, the Court noted that the appellants posed a flight risk and could influence witnesses. It held that the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) stood satisfied and upheld the trial court’s orders, dismissing the appeals.