UAPA Bail Cannot Rest on Long Incarceration Alone When Continuing Threat Persists: Delhi High Court Denies Bail To Two Accused Allegedly Planning Delhi Terror Attack
The Court rejected parity, citing prior conviction and recovery of explosives to hold continuing threat justifies custody under Section 43D(5) UAPA.
The Delhi High Court while denying bail to two accused allegedly involved in planning a terror attack in Delhi, has held that prolonged incarceration alone cannot constitute a standalone ground for bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 where the material on record discloses a continuing terror threat and satisfies the prima facie threshold under Section 43D(5) of the Act.
The Bench referred to a pen drive recovered from one appellant allegedly containing substantial jihadi material, social media and electronic records reflecting Caliphate-related documents, jihadi speeches, materials concerning the Hon’ble Prime Minister of India, the Chief of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, and digital communications allegedly linking the accused with members of the Indian Mujahideen in Pakistan. The Court held that such material, alongside allegations of bomb-making preparation, bore directly on the continuing threat assessment under UAPA.
A Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain dismissing appeals filed by Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, observed, “Insofar as the prolonged period of incarceration is concerned, the decision in Gulfisha Fatima (Supra) makes it clear that the role which has been attributed to the Appellants, prima facie material, etc. deserves to be considered by this Court. In the case of persons such as Appellants, who are part of terrorist organizations, there exists a continuing threat that they are likely to indulge in such behaviour if they are granted bail, especially, when considered in the light of the conviction which has already been handed out to the Appellants. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that merely prolonged incarceration would not be sufficient to grant bail to the Appellants, in these facts and circumstances”.
Advocate Deeksha Dwivedi appeared for the appellant and Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP appeared for the respondent.
According to the prosecution, the case arose from investigations into the activities of the Indian Mujahideen and an alleged Rajasthan-based module planning attacks in Delhi. The appellants were alleged to have been found in possession of significant quantities of explosives, detonators and electronic devices, and to have been engaged in preparatory acts for terrorist attacks, including alleged efforts relating to poison-based attacks.
The appellants were arrested in 2014 and later convicted in parallel proceedings in Rajasthan in 2021 for offences including waging war against the State, UAPA violations and offences under the Explosive Substances Act. Though the Rajasthan High Court suspended their sentences on grounds of long incarceration, the Special Court in Delhi rejected their bail pleas in the present case, leading to the appeals before the High Court.
The Court noted material in the chargesheet alleging that attendance records from Waqar Azhar’s engineering college in Jaipur reflected prolonged absence, including non-attendance throughout 2014, which the prosecution relied upon as corroborative of his alleged activities. It further referred to allegations that he had attempted to prepare poison using chemicals such as magnesium sulphate, acetone and castor seeds, purportedly with the intention of using poison-laced letters against identified targets.
Therefore, while rejecting the plea of parity with a co-accused granted bail earlier, the High Court held that the recoveries attributed to the appellants, including explosives, chemicals and electronic evidence, materially distinguished their case.
“Under Section 18 of the UAPA, even an act of preparation for commission of a terrorist act is punishable by imprisonment for life. There is no indication that the Appellants would not continue these activities even after being released from prison on bail. The vehement reliance on the orders passed by the High Court of Rajasthan would be of no avail to the Appellants inasmuch as in the said two cases suspension/ bail was granted only on the ground of long incarceration period and merits of the case was not discussed by the High Court of Rajasthan. However, under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, this Court has an obligation to consider whether the accusations are, prima facie, true or not”, the Bench noted.
Upholding the Trial Court’s orders, the High Court dismissed the appeals and clarified that neither parity nor prolonged detention, in the facts of the case, warranted departure from the restrictive bail regime under the UAPA.
Cause Title: Mohd. Saquib Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:3407-DB)
Appearances:
Appellant: Deeksha Dwivedi, Advocate.
Respondent: Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP, Divya Yadav, Advocate.