Limited Digital Role In ISIS-Linked Content, Coupled With Health Condition: Delhi High Court Grants Bail To UAPA Accused

The prosecution in the matter had alleged that the conspiracy involved Pakistan-based handlers, including the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), along with networks of Over-Ground Workers (OGWs) engaged in radicalisation, recruitment, and propaganda. The appellant allegedly functioned as an OGW and hybrid cadre for the frontal organisation of proscribed terrorist organization–TRF, extending logistical and ideological support to active militants.

Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja noting that the accused have already undergone prolonged incarceration of around 4 years and 4 months, observed, “Insofar as the health condition of appellant/Haris Nisar Langoo (accused no. 15) is concerned, it has been brought on record that he is suffering from cervical spondylosis, a condition that has reportedly deteriorated during the period of his incarceration. While this Court does not treat medical grounds as independently decisive in cases governed by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the state of health of an undertrial prisoner is nonetheless a relevant consideration in the overall assessment of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Prolonged pre-trial detention of a person whose alleged role is predominantly digital and non-violent in nature, and who is additionally suffering from a documented ailment, further tilts the balance in favour of conditional release rather than continued incarceration”.

“As regards the material found on the digital devices of the appellants, which may even be propagating anti-national activities, in our view, the same may not justify the continuation of the prolonged detention of the appellants at the trial stage. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants are the creators of this content or had further disseminated this content to others…”, the Bench further noted.

Advocate Tara Narula appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate Gautam Narayan appeared for the respondent.

According to the prosecution, credible intelligence inputs indicated a larger conspiracy to carry out terrorist acts in Jammu & Kashmir and other parts of India, including New Delhi. The conspiracy was allegedly orchestrated by hybrid cadres and sleeper cells of proscribed organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, and Al-Badr, operating through front organisations like The Resistance Front (TRF), People Against Fascist Forces (PAFF), Muslim Janbaaz Force (MJF), and Mujahideen Ghazwatul Hind (MGH).

The pertinent case was handed over to the National Investigation Agency by the Ministry of Home Affairs through an order dated October 10, 2021, following which an FIR was registered under Sections 120B, 121A, 122, and 123 IPC and Sections 18, 18-A, 18-B, 20, 38, and 39 UAPA.

During investigation, the NIA examined digital footprints, call detail records, and social media activity. The allegations against the accused primarily revolved around their presence in online groups and possession or sharing of extremist material linked to the Islamic State (IS), including content promoting violent jihad.

However, the High Court noted that there were no specific allegations that the accused had created such content or played an active role in its dissemination at a scale that would indicate operational involvement in terrorist activities. It observed that the case against them was largely based on digital material and alleged online association.

The Court also considered the limited nature of telephonic contact relied upon by the prosecution, observing that brief and sporadic calls, without more, could not conclusively establish a conspiratorial nexus at the stage of bail.

Noting that the prosecution has cited around 359 witnesses, out of which only a few have been examination, observed, “…the list of witnesses to be examined at trial has been curtailed and, therefore, the trial is not likely to take long, in our view, even with the curtailed number of witnesses, the trial is still likely to take a considerable amount of time to conclude. We, therefore, are of the view that taking into consideration the allegations against the appellant(s), their continued detention may amount to a violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The appellant(s) have already undergone prolonged incarceration of around 4 years and 4 months, without any certainty of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. In our considered opinion, and keeping in view the role assigned to the appellant(s), the continued detention of the appellant(s) at this stage would not serve the ends of justice”.

Taking into account the nature of allegations, the absence of clear evidence of active participation in terrorist acts, the prolonged period of custody, and the slow pace of trial, the Court held that continued incarceration would not serve the ends of justice.

Referring to Gulfisha Fatima v. State (GNCTD), 2026 INSC 2, the Bench noted, “On the question of delay in trial and its effect on an application filed by the accused seeking bail, the Supreme Court explained that Article 21 provides not an absolute but a correlated right. All accused are not to be treated identically; their respective roles in the alleged conspiracy must be considered. It must be examined what role is ascribed to them by the prosecution, how the same fits within the statutory ingredients, and whether continued detention would serve a legitimate purpose recognised by law”.

Accordingly, the Court granted bail to both accused, subject to stringent conditions, including regular reporting to the police, restrictions on travel and communication, and a prohibition on engaging in any activity related to the case or dissemination of unlawful content.

Cause Title: Haris Nisar Langoo v. National Investigation Agency [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2317-DB]

Appearances:

Appellant: Tara Narula and Priya Vats, Advocates.

Respondent: Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate/SPP, Asmita Singh, Shashank Jain, Geet Kumar, Prabhat Bajpai, Advocates with Insp. Lokesh.

Click here to read/download the Judgment