Introduction
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Saqib, an accused in an NIA investigation involving alleged terrorist activities, after he had remained in custody for almost eight years. The Court’s decision in CRL.A. 676/2024 involved a difficult question: how should a constitutional court balance the stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), with an accused’s fundamental right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution?
The case was particularly significant because the appellant had been taken into custody on 26 December 2018, while the prosecution had cited 120 witnesses and only 40 had been examined by the time the High Court considered the appeal. The Court noted that even after the prosecution proposed dropping 39 witnesses, the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon.
At the same time, the allegations against Saqib were serious. The prosecution alleged, among other things, that he was associated with the pro-ISIS group Harkat-ul-Harb-E-Islam, helped arrange weapons and established contacts in Jammu & Kashmir for linking the group with militants.
The judgment therefore does not stand for the proposition that delay automatically results in bail in every UAPA prosecution. Instead, it demonstrates the continuing judicial effort to reconcile national-security concerns, statutory restrictions on bail and the constitutional protection against prolonged pre-trial detention.
Case Details
| Particular | Details |
|---|---|
| Case Name | Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar v. National Investigation Agency |
| Court | High Court of Delhi at New Delhi |
| Case Number | CRL.A. 676/2024 |
| CNR No. | DLHC010456852024 |
| Reserved On | 31 August 2026 |
| Pronounced On | 14 September 2026 |
| Bench | Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja |
| Appellant | Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar |
| Respondent | National Investigation Agency |
| Principal Provision for Appeal | Section 21(4), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 |
| Important Bail Provision | Section 43D(5), UAPA |
| Other Provisions | Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 IPC; Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 UAPA; Sections 4 and 5 Explosive Substances Act |
The appeal challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 27 May 2024 rejecting the appellant’s bail application.
Background and Facts of the Case
The appellant was arrested on 26 December 2018 in connection with FIR No. RC-38/2018/NIA/DLI. The case concerned allegations involving conspiracy, waging war against the Government of India, offences under the UAPA and offences under the Explosive Substances Act.
According to the prosecution, Saqib was allegedly connected with the group Harkat-ul-Harb-E-Islam and had played a role in arranging weapons through contacts in western Uttar Pradesh. The investigation also alleged that he and another accused, A-6/Muhammad Absar, visited Jammu, Srinagar and Tral in July 2017 and July 2018 with the objective of establishing links with militants and obtaining training and weapons.
The prosecution further relied upon statements of witnesses, electronic material, CDR analysis, recoveries of mobile phones and a tablet, and other investigative material.
The appellant disputed the prosecution’s characterization of his role. His counsel argued that he was not part of the core module of the alleged terror plot and that the principal witnesses concerning his alleged Kashmir visits did not materially implicate him. It was also argued that these witnesses had already been examined and that the appellant’s continued custody was unjustified given the length of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.
What Was the Main Legal Issue Before the Delhi High Court?
The central issue was whether the appellant should be granted bail despite the statutory restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, particularly when he had already spent almost eight years in custody and the trial was nowhere near completion.
A related issue was whether the High Court could consider testimony recorded after the Trial Court had rejected the earlier bail application.
The prosecution argued that mere delay could not justify bail and that the allegations against the appellant were grave. It also argued that material recorded after the Trial Court’s order should not be considered in the appeal and that the appellant should instead approach the Trial Court afresh.
Article 21 and Section 43D(5): How Did the Court Approach the Conflict?
The Court examined the developing jurisprudence concerning the relationship between Article 21 of the Constitution and Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The judgment referred extensively to Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, where the Supreme Court recognised that statutory restrictions on bail do not completely exclude the constitutional courts’ power to grant bail when prolonged incarceration results in a violation of fundamental rights.
The Court also considered the Supreme Court’s later discussion in Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi) concerning the appropriate approach when prolonged incarceration and delay are relied upon for seeking bail under the UAPA.
The important principle emerging from that discussion is that delay cannot be considered in isolation. The court must examine the nature of the allegations, the accused’s role, the stage of the proceedings, the realistic prospects of the trial concluding, the causes of delay and the risks associated with release.
This contextual approach is important. Article 21 protects personal liberty and the right to a speedy trial, but the UAPA represents Parliament’s deliberate decision to impose stringent restrictions in cases involving offences of a special nature.
Is Prolonged Incarceration Alone Enough for Bail Under UAPA?
No. Prolonged incarceration is not an automatic ground for bail in every UAPA case. The judgment recognises that the court must conduct a contextual assessment. Relevant factors include the accused’s individual role, the nature of allegations, the stage and likely duration of trial, the causes of delay, the prima facie material and risks associated with release.
This distinction becomes particularly important because the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on Article 21 and Section 43D(5) was itself undergoing further consideration.
The Delhi High Court noted that the question concerning the interplay between Article 21 and Section 43D(5) had been referred to a larger Bench in Tasleem Ahmed v. State, Government of NCT of Delhi. The Supreme Court had cautioned against treating delay as an automatic ground for bail in every UAPA case while simultaneously recognising that an unqualified application of Section 43D(5) could imperil Article 21.
Thus, the legal position requires a balance rather than an absolute rule in favour of either liberty or detention.
Section 43D(5) UAPA and the Individual Role of the Accused
Another significant aspect of the judgment concerns the accused-specific nature of the bail inquiry.
The judgment referred to the Supreme Court’s discussion that the phrase “prima facie true” under Section 43D(5) requires a meaningful threshold examination of whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses the essential ingredients of the alleged offence.
Importantly, this assessment must focus on the role attributed to the particular accused rather than simply treating every accused involved in a common transaction or conspiracy identically.
This principle was particularly relevant in Saqib’s case because the High Court was required to consider his individual role rather than merely the seriousness of the broader allegations against the group.
Why Did the Delhi High Court Grant Bail to Mohammad Saqib?
The Court identified several circumstances that cumulatively justified bail.
1. Almost Eight Years of Custody
The appellant had been in custody since 26 December 2018 and had therefore spent almost eight years behind bars without conclusion of the trial.
2. Trial Was Unlikely to Conclude Soon
Of the 120 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 40 had been examined. Even after the prosecution proposed dropping 39 witnesses, the Court found that the trial was not likely to end in the near future.
3. Relevant Witnesses Had Been Examined
The principal witnesses concerning the appellant’s alleged Kashmir visits had already testified before the Trial Court. The High Court considered their statements and found no reason to deny bail on the basis of their imputations against him.
4. Subsequent Evidence Could Be Considered
The prosecution argued that evidence recorded after rejection of the original bail application should not be considered by the High Court.
The Court rejected this argument in the peculiar circumstances of the case. It noted both the appellant’s prolonged incarceration and the pendency of the appeal, during which the High Court itself had adjourned proceedings to facilitate recording of the relevant witness testimony.
5. Evidence Was Not Found Sufficient to Justify Further Detention at the Bail Stage
The High Court deliberately avoided conducting a detailed assessment of the witness statements because that could prejudice the pending trial. It nevertheless observed that, prima facie, the material did not warrant prolonging the appellant’s detention during trial.
The Court similarly considered the electronic evidence to be grave in nature but held that, given the prolonged incarceration, it did not justify continued denial of bail.
Final Decision of the Delhi High Court
The High Court allowed the appeal and directed that Mohammad Saqib be released on bail.
The appellant was required to execute a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the same amount. The Court imposed extensive conditions, including surrender of his passport, restrictions on leaving the country and his native district, use of only one communication number, regular appearance before the Trial Court and reporting to the NIA office.
He was also prohibited from contacting or influencing witnesses, tampering with evidence, making public statements concerning the merits of the case and engaging in conduct that could prejudice public order or the integrity of the trial.
The Court expressly stated that breach of the bail conditions could result in the prosecution seeking cancellation of bail. It set aside the Trial Court’s order rejecting bail.
Ratio Decidendi
The core principle of the judgment is that in a UAPA prosecution, prolonged pre-trial incarceration and an apparently distant trial conclusion require constitutional scrutiny under Article 21, even though Section 43D(5) imposes stringent restrictions on bail.
However, the judgment should not be read as creating an automatic rule that prolonged custody alone mandates bail. The Court’s decision was based on the cumulative circumstances: the extraordinary period of incarceration, the slow progress of the trial, the examination of relevant witnesses, the individual role attributed to the appellant, the material available at the bail stage and the possibility of imposing safeguards through stringent bail conditions.
The Court also carefully clarified that its observations were only for the purpose of deciding bail and were not findings on the merits of the criminal case.
Important Legal Provisions
Section 21(4), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008
The appeal was filed under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act seeking bail after the Trial Court rejected the appellant’s bail application.
Section 43D(5), UAPA
This provision creates special restrictions on bail in prosecutions under the UAPA. The judgment emphasised that the statutory restriction remains important, but it cannot be considered entirely divorced from constitutional guarantees.
Article 21, Constitution of India
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty. The judgment’s discussion treats the right to a speedy trial as an important aspect of this constitutional protection. At the same time, the Court recognised that Article 21 operates within the statutory framework governing national-security offences.
Important Precedents Considered
| Case | Principle | Role in the Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb | Constitutional courts retain power to grant bail where prolonged detention and delay implicate fundamental rights | Central precedent concerning Article 21 and Section 43D(5) |
| Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi) | Delay requires a contextual, accused-specific assessment | Used to examine the proper constitutional approach |
| Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, Jammu | Discussed the continuing relationship between Article 21 and UAPA bail restrictions | Considered in relation to the developing jurisprudence |
| Tasleem Ahmed v. State, Govt. of NCT of Delhi | Delay cannot automatically compel bail; relevant circumstances must be considered | Noted because the issue had been referred to a larger Bench |
| Union Territory of Ladakh v. J&K National Conference | High Courts ordinarily follow the law as it stands despite a reference to a larger Bench | Used to explain why the pending reference did not prevent consideration of the appeal |
The Delhi High Court also referred to several other authorities cited by the parties concerning prolonged incarceration, bail and consideration of subsequent material.
What Does This Judgment Mean for UAPA Bail Cases?
For accused persons, the judgment reinforces the importance of placing the duration and realistic trajectory of the trial before the court. Lengthy incarceration is particularly significant where the trial remains substantially incomplete.
For prosecution agencies, the judgment does not eliminate Section 43D(5). Serious allegations, strong prima facie material, risks of witness intimidation, tampering, absconding and national-security considerations remain relevant.
For lawyers, the case highlights the importance of presenting an accused-specific bail argument rather than relying solely on general propositions concerning delay.
For law students and judiciary aspirants, the decision illustrates the constitutional tension between special statutory bail regimes and Article 21. It is also a useful example of the distinction between a bail-stage assessment and a final adjudication of guilt.
Key Takeaways
- The Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohammad Saqib after almost eight years of incarceration.
- The prosecution had cited 120 witnesses, of whom only 40 had been examined.
- The Court found that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon.
- Section 43D(5) UAPA does not operate in complete isolation from Article 21.
- Prolonged incarceration is not, by itself, an automatic ground for bail in every UAPA case.
- The accused’s individual role is important in applying Section 43D(5).
- The Court avoided a detailed assessment of evidence that could prejudice the trial.
- The High Court considered subsequent witness testimony in the peculiar circumstances of this appeal.
- Bail was accompanied by extensive safeguards and restrictions.
- The Court expressly clarified that its observations were not findings on the merits of the criminal prosecution.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What is the Mohammad Saqib v. NIA judgment?
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohammad Saqib in a UAPA-related prosecution after he had remained in custody for almost eight years. The Court considered the prolonged incarceration, slow progress of the trial, the evidence against the appellant at the bail stage and the constitutional concerns arising under Article 21.
2. Why was bail granted after nearly eight years?
The Court was particularly concerned that the appellant had spent almost eight years in custody and that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon. Only 40 of the 120 prosecution witnesses had been examined when the High Court considered the matter.
3. Does delay automatically entitle a UAPA accused to bail?
No. The judgment specifically reflects the contextual approach to delay. Courts must consider factors such as the accused’s role, nature of allegations, stage of trial, causes of delay, likelihood of conclusion and risks associated with release.
4. What is the relevance of Article 21 in UAPA bail cases?
Article 21 protects life and personal liberty and includes the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The judgment recognises that statutory restrictions on bail must nevertheless operate consistently with constitutional guarantees.
5. What is Section 43D(5) of the UAPA?
Section 43D(5) establishes a special statutory restriction on bail in specified UAPA prosecutions. The judgment examined how this restriction must be balanced with constitutional rights, particularly where incarceration becomes exceptionally prolonged.
6. Did the Delhi High Court find Mohammad Saqib innocent?
No. The Court expressly clarified that its observations were made only for deciding bail and should not be treated as observations on the merits of the case.
7. What bail conditions were imposed?
The conditions included a ₹50,000 personal bond with two sureties, passport surrender, travel restrictions, residence restrictions, regular trial attendance, restrictions on contacting witnesses, prohibitions against evidence tampering and fortnightly reporting to the NIA office, among others.
8. Could the High Court consider evidence recorded after the Trial Court rejected bail?
Yes. In the peculiar circumstances of the case, the High Court considered the subsequent testimony because of the appellant’s prolonged incarceration and the pendency of the appeal, including adjournments that facilitated recording of the relevant testimony.
9. What is the importance of K.A. Najeeb in UAPA bail cases?
K.A. Najeeb is important because it recognises that statutory restrictions such as Section 43D(5) do not completely exclude constitutional courts from granting bail where prolonged incarceration and an unlikely timely trial raise concerns under Part III of the Constitution.
10. What is the broader significance of this judgment?
The judgment demonstrates that UAPA bail applications require a careful balance between statutory restrictions, national-security concerns, the individual role of the accused and the constitutional protection against unjustifiably prolonged pre-trial detention.
