Inability To Trace Beneficiaries Cannot Defeat Or Postpone Compensation Disbursal: Supreme Court Directs High Court Suo Motu Proceedings Disability Pension | Mere Manifestation Of Disease During Military Service Without Causal Connection Is Not Sufficient For Entitlement: Supreme Court Prevention Of Corruption Act | Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Without Proof Of Demand Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court Appointment Contrary To Statutory Requirements And Advertisement Terms Amounts To Fraud On Public: Supreme Court IT Act | Once Settlement Commission Admits Application Under Section 245C, Assessing Officer Loses Jurisdiction To Reopen Assessment Under Section 148: Supreme Court NDPS Act | Prosecution Must Establish Unbroken Chain Of Custody For Samples, Failure To Comply With Section 52-A Renders FSL Report Inadmissible: Supreme Court Section 180 BNSS | Investigating Officers Must Adopt Transparent Practices; DGP Should Consider Making Audio-Video Recording Of Witness Statements Mandatory: Allahabad High Court Rowdy Sheet Cannot Be Opened In A Mechanical Manner Based On Mere Pendency Of Two Criminal Cases: Andhra Pradesh High Court 'Surname Protection Under Section 35 Trade Marks Act Not Restricted To Natural Persons': Bombay High Court Allows Corporate Body To Use Family Name Circumstantial Evidence | Prosecution Must Prove Connectivity Between Accused And Crime, Mere 'Last Seen' Theory Insufficient: Calcutta High Court Section 482 BNSS | Criminal Prosecution Against Company Directors Cannot Be Quashed When Investigation Reveals Active Role Beyond Mere Designation: Delhi High Court Cannot Be Permitted To Patch Up Weak Points: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Belated Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Plea Order XXI Rule 90 CPC | Burden To Prove Material Irregularity Or Fraud In Court Auction Sale Lies Upon Judgment Debtor: Kerala High Court Departmental Instructions Not Being Mandatory, Non-Compliance Does Not Vitiate Enquiry If Guilt Is Proved By Other Cogent Evidence: Delhi High Court Doctrine Of Res Gestae | Hearsay Evidence Can Be Admissible If Statement Is Spontaneous And Contemporaneous With The Occurrence: Madras High Court Relatives Cannot Be Roped Into Matrimonial Disputes On The Basis Of Omnibus Allegations: Madhya Pradesh High Court Grants Discharge Victim In Private Complaint Case Entitled To File Appeal Against Acquittal Before Sessions Court U/S 372 CrPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court Section 58 BNSS | Detention Beyond 24 Hours Without Magistrate’s Authority Vitiates Remand, Entitles Accused To Bail: Orissa High Court Section 18 Limitation Act | Acknowledgement Of Loan In Promissory Note Extends Period Of Limitation For Entire Debt: Delhi High Court Section 138 NI Act | Existence Of Defence Founded On Disputed Facts Cannot Be Ground To Scuttle Cheque Bounce Prosecution At Inception: Punjab & Haryana High Court

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