Detailed Description Of Concealment Not Mandatory Under Section 27 Evidence Act: Bombay High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Child Is Not A Pawn To Prove Mother's Adultery: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Husband's DNA Test Petition In Desertion Divorce Case Shareholder Ratification Cannot Cure Fraud Under SEBI's PFUTP Regulations: Supreme Court Restores Rs. 70 Lakh Penalty on Company When High Court Judges Themselves Disagree on the Answer, Can a Law Graduate Be Penalised for Getting It Wrong? Supreme Court Says No Superficial Burns Don't Mean Silence: Supreme Court Explains Why 80-90% Burn Victim Could Still Make a Valid Dying Declaration Daughter's Eyewitness Account, Dying Declaration Seal Husband's Fate: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence for Wife-Burning Murder Supreme Court Rejects Rs. 106 Crore Compensation Claim; Directs SECL to Supply Coal to Prakash Industries at 2014 or 2019 Prices for Wrongfully Suspended Period Section 319 CrPC | Trial Court Cannot Conduct Mini Trial While Deciding Application to Summon Additional Accused: Supreme Court Accused Can't Be Left Without Documents To Defend: Calcutta High Court Directs Adjudicating Authority To First Decide Whether Complete 'Relied Upon Documents' Were Served In PMLA Proceedings Husband Who Took Voluntary Retirement at 47 Cannot Escape Maintenance Duty: Delhi High Court Upholds ₹10,000/Month to Wife and Daughter Cannot Claim Monopoly Over a Deity's Name: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Trademark Injunction Against 'Kshetrapal Construction' Eviction Appeal Cannot Require Actual Surrender Of Possession, Symbolic Possession Sufficient: J&K High Court Amendment Introducing Time-Barred Relief And Changing Nature Of Suit Cannot Be Allowed: Karnataka High Court Counter Claim Is An Independent Suit: MP High Court Rules Properties Beyond Territorial Jurisdiction Cannot Be Dragged Into Counter Claim Co-Sharer Cannot Be Bound By Passage Carved Out Without His Consent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Modifies Concurrent Decrees ‘Prima Facie True’ Is Enough to Deny Liberty: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses Bail in Babbar Khalsa Terror Conspiracy Case High Court Cannot Quash FIR for Forgery When Handwriting Expert's Report Is Still Awaited: Supreme Court Supreme Court Calls for Paternity Leave Law, Says Father's Absence in Child's Early Years Leaves a "Quiet Cost" That Lasts a Lifetime Three-Month Age Cap for Adoptive Mothers' Maternity Benefit Struck Down: Supreme Court Reads Down Section 60(4) of Social Security Code Bank Cannot Rely on Charter Party Agreement to Justify Remittance Contrary to Customer's Instructions: Supreme Court 19 Candidates Linked to Accused, Papers of Five Subjects Leaked: Allahabad High Court Upholds Cancellation of UP Assistant Professor Exam Result

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