Delhi High Court: Grants UAPA Bail After 8 Years In Custody

• The Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohammad Saqib after he spent nearly eight years in custody as an undertrial.
• Saqib was booked in 2018 under the UAPA, Explosive Substances Act, and Indian Penal Code for allegedly waging war against the government.
• The court noted that the trial was far from over, with only 40 out of 120 prosecution witnesses having testified.
• Saqib's previous bail plea was rejected by a lower court, and the NIA opposed bail, arguing delay alone was insufficient.
• This ruling emphasizes the right to a speedy trial and prolonged custody as grounds for bail, even in serious terror-related cases.

This Mohammad Saqib bail judgment sets a notable precedent, particularly for individuals facing charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) who endure prolonged custody bail India.

The Delhi High Court recently intervened in a long-standing case, granting bail to Mohammad Saqib, who had been incarcerated as an undertrial for nearly eight years. The court's decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja on September 14, underscored the significant delay in the judicial process. Saqib, also known as Saqib Iftekar, was originally booked in 2018 under stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Explosive Substances Act, and the Indian Penal Code.

The court observed that the trial against Saqib was far from completion, a critical factor in its determination. Despite the serious nature of the charges, which included allegations of waging war against the government of India, the prolonged pre-trial detention became a central point of consideration. This ruling highlights a growing judicial emphasis on the right to a timely trial, even in complex cases involving national security.

Mohammad Saqib was arrested in 2018 following allegations by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that he was a member of Harkat-ul-Harb-E-Islam, a pro-IS group. The NIA further claimed that Saqib facilitated meetings with militants from Jaish-e-Mohammed for training purposes and was involved in procuring arms intended for use in acts of war against the Indian state. These accusations paint a picture of deep involvement in terror-related activities, yet the court ultimately prioritized the duration of his custody.

Prior to approaching the High Court, Saqib's application for bail had been rejected by an Additional Sessions Judge at the Patiala House Courts. This earlier denial necessitated his appeal to the higher judicial forum, where his legal team presented arguments centered on his limited role in the alleged conspiracy. Saqib contended that he was not part of the core module of the terror plot, asserting that his involvement, at best, was merely peripheral.

The National Investigation Agency vehemently opposed the bail plea, arguing that the mere passage of time or a delay in the conclusion of the trial should not be sufficient grounds for granting bail, especially in cases of such gravity. The agency maintained that the seriousness of the charges warranted continued detention. However, the High Court’s assessment of the trial's progress revealed a stark reality: out of 120 prosecution witnesses, testimony had been recorded from only 40, indicating that the proceedings were unlikely to conclude in the near future.

This Mohammad Saqib bail judgment sets a notable precedent, particularly for individuals facing charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) who endure prolonged custody bail India. The Delhi High Court UAPA bail 8 years ruling reinforces the principle that an accused's right to a speedy trial cannot be indefinitely suspended, even when confronted with severe allegations like those of waging war against the government. It signals a judicial willingness to scrutinize the pace of trials and the impact of extended pre-trial detention on fundamental rights.

The decision in Mohammad Saqib vs NIA underscores the judiciary's role in balancing national security concerns with individual liberties. By granting bail primarily due to the extensive period of incarceration and the slow progress of the trial, the court has provided a crucial reference point for future bail applications in similarly situated cases. This judgment could influence how courts assess bail requests where undertrials have spent significant time in custody awaiting the conclusion of their legal proceedings, emphasizing that justice delayed can indeed be justice denied.

Criminal defense lawyers representing clients accused under UAPA should note this Delhi High Court precedent, which reinforces prolonged custody and slow trial progress as grounds for bail, even in serious terror-related cases. This can be cited in bail applications for similarly situated clients.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench