MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


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.

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.

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.

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.”

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

Latest Legal News