Even in Terror Cases, Trial Cannot Take Forever: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Accused in 13/7 Mumbai Blasts

“Indefinite Incarceration Without Trial Violates Article 21”:  Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling in Kafeel Ahmed Mohd Ayub v. State of Maharashtra, allowed a criminal appeal under Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, setting aside a Special Court order that denied bail to the appellant under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A Division Bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Ranjitsinha Raja Bhonsale granted bail solely on the ground of prolonged incarceration without trial, observing that the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution cannot be sacrificed even in cases involving terrorism-related charges.

The Court found that the appellant, arrested in May 2012, had been in custody for over 13.5 years, during which only 167 of the 400 witnesses had been examined in the 13/7 Mumbai triple bomb blast case. The delay, the Court held, was not procedural, but a denial of justice.

“Bail Cannot Be Denied When Trial Is Moving at a Glacial Pace — The State Cannot Hold a Man in Custody Indefinitely”

The prosecution had opposed bail on the grounds of gravity of charges and the seriousness of the blasts that occurred on 13 July 2011 at Opera House, Zaveri Bazar, and Kabutarkhana, Dadar West. It argued that the appellant had harboured co-accused terrorists, as shown in confessional statements under Section 18 of MCOCA.

However, the High Court was not persuaded, noting:

“After framing of charges on 5th March, 2021, in the last more than 4½ years, the prosecution has examined only 167 witnesses. The prosecution is yet to examine 233 witnesses. According to us, the possibility of concluding the trial of the present case in near future is bleak.”

The Court emphasised that the right to liberty under Part III of the Constitution must not be overridden by statutory limitations under special laws, particularly where the trial is unreasonably delayed.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb [(2021) 3 SCC 713], the Bench observed:

“The presence of statutory restrictions like Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA per se does not oust the ability of the constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution.”

“Right to Speedy Trial Is Not a Statutory Concession but a Constitutional Guarantee” — Court Grants Bail Despite MCOCA Restrictions

While acknowledging the seriousness of the allegations, the High Court clarified that the bail was not granted on merits, but on constitutional considerations. The Court made it clear:

“The Appellant is aged 65 years as of today and is suffering from age-related ailments… The rigours of statutory bail conditions must yield to the fundamental right to life and liberty where indefinite incarceration defeats the very purpose of criminal justice.”

The Bench further held:

“Had it been a case at the threshold, we would have outrightly turned down the respondent's prayer. However, keeping in mind the length of the period spent by him in custody and the unlikelihood of the trial being completed anytime soon, the High Court appears to have been left with no other option except to grant bail.”

Role of the Accused Limited to Harbouring, Not Direct Execution of Blasts — Bail Granted With Stringent Conditions

The Court found that the confessional material prima facie indicated the appellant's role was confined to giving shelter to co-accused, either before or after the commission of the offences.

Thus, while not exonerating the accused, the Court found that continued custody without adjudication was unjustified:

“The observations made herein are prima facie in nature and for deciding the application for bail only. The learned Special Judge shall decide the main case on its own merits.”

Bail was granted with stringent conditions, including:

• Execution of a PR bond of ₹1,00,000 with local sureties

• Monthly reporting to the ATS, Mumbai

• Surrender of passport

• Restrictions on movement and contact with witnesses

• Strict compliance with court dates and conditions, failing which bail can be cancelled

The Bombay High Court’s judgment sets a critical precedent by reaffirming that constitutional rights cannot be indefinitely suspended in the name of national security, particularly in the absence of a concluded trial. The decision is a strong reiteration that Article 21 prevails even in the realm of anti-terror laws, when pre-trial custody becomes punitive in nature rather than preventive.

By applying the doctrine from K.A. Najeeb, the Court ensured a balance between the rights of the State and the accused, noting that no law can be interpreted to condone endless incarceration without trial.

“Constitutional liberty cannot be caged indefinitely by procedural delays in trial — this would amount to punishing without proving,” the Court’s decision implicitly conveyed.

Date of Decision: November 4, 2025