SC grants bail to two UAPA accused after 12 yrs, cites Article 21 violation

Top court says prolonged incarceration without any realistic prospect of an early trial conclusion violates the fundamental right to personal liberty

The Supreme Court (SC) recently ordered the release on bail of two men accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), holding that their incarceration for nearly 12 years without any realistic prospect of the trial concluding infringed their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

 

A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta granted bail to Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar in connection with a first information report (FIR) registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell in 2011. Their release will be subject to conditions imposed by the trial court, provided they are not required in any other criminal case.

 

 

The two had challenged an April 24, 2026, judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had upheld the trial court's refusal to grant them bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

 

The apex court noted that both accused had remained behind bars since 2014 solely because of the Delhi case. In two related prosecutions in Rajasthan based on similar allegations, they had either secured bail or obtained suspension of their sentences.

 

Assessing the status of the Delhi proceedings through the e-Courts portal, the Bench found that the trial had progressed at a sluggish pace.

 

Of the 197 prosecution witnesses cited, only 68 had been examined. Since January 2025, only two witnesses had entered the witness box, one of whom had been examined only partly.

 

Observing that the trial involved 25 accused, the court said there was little indication that the proceedings would conclude any time soon. It remarked that the pace of the trial had been "extremely slow" and that there was no foreseeable likelihood of its early completion.

 

The prosecution case originated from the 2011 arrest of Pakistani national Mohammed Qateel Siddiqui, who allegedly revealed the existence of a Rajasthan-based module of the Indian Mujahideen.

 

Investigators claimed that information obtained during the investigation led to the recovery of explosives and materials allegedly used to make improvised explosive devices from premises linked to Ansari in Jodhpur and Azhar in Jaipur. These recoveries resulted in two separate FIRs in Rajasthan, apart from the Delhi case.

 

The Supreme Court observed that the allegations across the three FIRs substantially overlapped. It also noted that, in one Rajasthan case, the petitioners were convicted in 2021 but later obtained suspension of their sentences from the Rajasthan High Court, while in the second Rajasthan case they had already been granted bail.

 

The Bench further took into account that co-accused Mohd Maroof had already been released on bail in the Delhi proceedings.

 

Considering the prolonged custody, the overlapping prosecutions, the relief granted in the Rajasthan cases and the slow progress of the Delhi trial, the court concluded that the continued detention of the petitioners was unjustified and violated their constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21.