Supreme Court Grants Bail To Indian Mujahideen Accused In 2011 Delhi Case Noting Over 12 Years In Custody And Slow Trial Progress

"Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances, particularly the fact that the co-accused Mohd. Maroof has already been enlarged on bail; that the sentences of both the petitioners have been suspended in the case arising from FIR No. 03/2014... coupled with the slow progress of trial, we feel that the continued incarceration of the petitioners in this case is grossly violative of the right to liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, granted bail to two long-incarcerated individuals accused in a 2011 Indian Mujahideen terror module case, holding that prolonged detention spanning over twelve years coupled with an extremely sluggish trial violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

 A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta observed that the continued incarceration of the petitioners was unwarranted given that they had already secured bail or suspension of sentence in connected Rajasthan cases and that the trial in Delhi was moving at a snail's pace.

The petitioners, Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, were arrested in 2014 in connection with multiple FIRs registered in Delhi and Rajasthan alleging their involvement in the Indian Mujahideen Rajasthan Module. They faced prosecution under various provisions of the IPC, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. While they were convicted in one Rajasthan case, their sentences were subsequently suspended by the Rajasthan High Court, and they were granted bail in another pending Rajasthan matter, leaving their detention solely tied to FIR No. 54 of 2011 registered by the Special Cell in New Delhi.

The primary question before the court was whether the prolonged incarceration of over twelve years as an undertrial, alongside extremely slow trial progress, warranted the grant of bail despite stringent statutory bars under the UAPA. The court was also called upon to evaluate the parity of the petitioners' custody status vis-a-vis co-accused individuals who had already been enlarged on bail.

Court Notes Over Twelve Years In Custody

The bench took detailed note of the fact that both petitioners had been behind bars since 2014 in connection with FIR No. 54 of 2011 registered at Police Station Special Cell, New Delhi. Their total period of incarceration had stretched to nearly twelve years without any immediate prospect of the trial reaching its conclusion.

Extremely Slow Trial Progress

Reviewing the status of the trial from the e-Courts Services Portal, the bench highlighted the glacial pace of judicial proceedings. The court observed that out of 197 proposed prosecution witnesses, only the testimony of witness number 68 was underway, and merely two witnesses had been examined since January 2025.

"The progress of the trial has been extremely slow, and there appears to be no prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future," the bench explicitly recorded while assessing the ground realities of the trial court proceedings.

Parity With Co-Accused And Rajasthan Cases

The Supreme Court gave considerable weight to the changing factual matrix surrounding the petitioners' involvement in multiple connected criminal cases. The bench observed that co-accused Mohd. Maroof had already been enlarged on bail by the courts.

Furthermore, the judges noted that the substantive sentences awarded to the petitioners following their conviction in the Jaipur FIR had been duly suspended by the Rajasthan High Court, and they had also secured regular bail in the Jodhpur FIR.

Continued Detention Violates Article 21

Synthesizing the cumulative impact of prolonged undertrial detention, tardy trial progress, and the grant of relief in parallel proceedings, the bench ruled that keeping the petitioners behind bars any longer would amount to an infringement of fundamental rights.

"Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances... coupled with the slow progress of trial, we feel that the continued incarceration of the petitioners in this case is grossly violative of the right to liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the court declared.

Final Directions And Safeguards

Allowing the Special Leave Petitions, the Supreme Court directed that the petitioners be released on bail subject to terms and conditions to be fixed by the trial court, provided they are not required in any other case. The bench clarified that its observations were strictly limited to the bail adjudication and would not impact the merits of the ongoing trial.

The court further mandated that the petitioners must actively cooperate with the trial proceedings. It granted liberty to the prosecution to approach the apex court for cancellation of bail if the petitioners attempted to delay the trial or misuse their liberty.

The Supreme Court's ruling reinforces the constitutional primacy of personal liberty under Article 21 over prolonged statutory incarceration when trial progress grinds to a halt. By factoring in parity, suspended sentences in parallel matters, and administrative delays in the trial court, the bench has reaffirmed that speedy trial rights apply with full vigor even in severe terror prosecutions under the UAPA.

Date of Decision: 27 July 2026