Conventional Idea That ‘Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception’ Does Not Find Place in UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Upholds Stringent Bail Denial for Accused in Delhi Serial Blasts

Share:
fir bail transport pay Fees Public T20 World Cup v Pay Video School company Human Rape Sexual Taxable Evidence Tax Statement property students Policy Bail Bail cheques Police Accident Service Claim Trademark Cognizance smuggling NI Eviction Agreement Minister Acid spa Old Delhi HC MBBS DivorceLand Child Evidence Bail Senior Marriage Maintenance Application Property Exam Evidence Divorce doctrine pocso award Medical public Income Tax constable National bailUniversity Property Recovery Evidence Adopted v Payment territorial corporation Bail liability police bank Constitutionality child nature claim domestic Limitation bsnl traffic property railway legal landlords Relationship Citizen property Tax custody phonetic predicate Acquisition forum public asset tax wire eligibility violence physical financial second trademark person Corpus Director TDS policy entertainment parody games recovery 14 tax judiciary claims court bar 34 Raps advertisement employees salary mother rape decisions students 138 divorce bail CBI fir evidence evidence eviction drc lower doctors legal investigation civil copyright

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court today dismissed the bail application of Mubeen Kadar Shaikh, an accused in the 2008 Delhi serial bomb blasts, emphasizing the stringent standards for bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court noted that the nature of the accusations and the involvement of the accused in a grave conspiracy makes the case exceptional.

Background and Arrest:

Mubeen Kadar Shaikh was implicated following the Delhi bomb blasts on September 13, 2008, resulting from the activities linked to the Indian Mujahideen terror group. The prosecution detailed how evidence including laptops and communication equipment used in the orchestration of these blasts was recovered, pointing to Shaikh’s involvement in the “Media Cell” responsible for sending threatening emails before the blasts.

Legal Proceedings and Bail Denials:

Shaikh’s applications for bail have been consistently rejected given the severity of the offences and the potential implications of his release. Despite arguments regarding discrepancies in the evidence and prolonged trial periods, the court held firm that the nature of the offences and the overarching conspiracy involved outweigh the personal liberty of the accused in such instances.

Court’s Detailed Assessment:

The court extensively referenced the evidence presented, including forensic analysis of electronic devices recovered from Shaikh, which were purportedly used to send the emails threatening further attacks. Justice Suresh Kumar Kait, in delivering the judgment, underscored the rigorous standards required under UAPA, stating, “The Court is expected to apply its mind to ascertain whether the accusations against the accused are prima facie true.”

Decision and Directions:

The High Court, while denying bail, directed for the expeditious conclusion of the trial, instructing the Special Court to hold proceedings at least twice a week given the lengthy duration Shaikh has already spent in custody. The court stressed that any delay in the trial process does not justify the concession of bail in cases involving terrorism.

Date of Decision: April 29, 2024

MUBEEN KADAR SHAIKH versus STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

Download Judgment

Share: