Delhi HC Denies Bail To UAPA Accused, Long Incarceration Not Enough

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court denied bail to two accused allegedly involved in planning a terror attack in the country. The Court held that although the accused had been in prolonged incarceration, their release would pose a serious threat to national security and safety.

A bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain heard appeals by two accused persons who challenged the rejection of their bail applications by the trial court in proceedings arising from an FIR registered by the Special Cell, Delhi Police, concerning alleged membership of a banned organisation and recovery of explosive materials. The appeals assailed orders of the Additional Sessions Judge that had refused bail under the stringent regime of Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The Court summarised that it was required to apply the twin-prong test applicable to bail under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and to assess, at the prima facie stage, whether the accusations were made out on broad probabilities. The trial court had relied on Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. ( "(2024) 5 SCC 403": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 558) to apply strict conditions for bail under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the State had invoked Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ( "2026 INSC 2": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 1) to resist arguments based on delay in trial. The Court noted that the Supreme Court guidance in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali ( "(2019) 5 SCC 1": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2976) had set out matters to be considered while dealing with bail applications under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and a coordinate bench decision in Abdul Wahid v. National Investigation Agency had been cited to emphasize the high threshold required by the statutory proviso. The Court also considered precedents dealing with parity and prolonged incarceration, including Md. Heydaitullah v. National Investigation Agency and Sagar v. State of U.P., to examine whether long detention or parity with a co-accused could override the statutory bar.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "At the prima facie stage, these facts are more than sufficient for rejecting bail. The manner in which the Appellants have been wholly entrenched in the activities of the Indian Mujahideen leaves no manner of doubt that, in order to prevent them from indulging in anti-national activities and terrorist activities, and considering the fact that they pose a flight risk and could also have an impact on other witnesses who are to appear in the matter, this Court is of the opinion that they do not deserve to be released on bail."

Background

The appeals arose from FIR No.54/2011 registered at the Special Cell, Delhi Police and related offshoot FIRs registered in Jaipur and Jodhpur. The appellants were accused of running a regional module of a proscribed organisation, and the charges included offences under Sections 17/18/18A/18B/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 3/4/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, various offences under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 including Sections 465, 468 and 471, Section 12 of the Passports Act, 1967, and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 . The trial court had refused bail after recording that large quantities of explosive substances, chemicals, detonators and related electronic material had been seized from the accused and that there was material indicating active preparation for terrorist acts.

The appellants contended that parity with a co-accused who had been granted bail and the prolonged period of incarceration ought to tilt the balance in favour of release. The State responded that FIR No.54/2011 was the parent investigation, that the Jaipur conviction and the seizure material satisfied the prima facie threshold under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and that delay in trial did not automatically mandate bail in such cases, relying on Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) ( "2026 INSC 2": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 1) among others. The Court considered authorities on the scope of Section 43D(5) including the principles in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali ( "(2019) 5 SCC 1": 2019 CaseBase(SC) 2976), the twin-prong test explained in Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Anr. ( "(2024) 5 SCC 403": 2024 CaseBase(SC) 558), and the coordinate bench observation in Abdul Wahid v. National Investigation Agency regarding the high threshold for bail.

The Court recorded key statutory text and precedent-based observations, observing that "Provided that such accused person shall not be released on bail or on his own bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case diary or the report made under section 173 of the Code is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true." Applying those principles to the Jaipur trial findings of seizures, links with leadership, and evidence of training and reconnaissance for attacks, the Court found that the statutory proviso stood satisfied on a prima facie view. The Court further held that parity with a co-accused was not a decisive ground because the quality and nature of the material recovered from the two appellants were materially distinct from the co-accused who had been released.

The High Court therefore dismissed the appeals and confirmed the trial court orders refusing bail, holding that the appellants did not meet the stringent test under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and that continued detention could not be displaced on the facts of the case. The Court disposed of pending applications as well.

Case Details:
Case No.: CRL.A. 95/2025 & CRL.A. 252/2025
Case Title: Mohd. Saquib Ansari v. State NCT of Delhi & Waqar Azhar v. State NCT of Delhi
Appearances:
For the Appellant(s): Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with Ms. Divya Yadav, Adv.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 260