The Supreme Court has granted bail to two accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, after taking note of their prolonged incarceration for nearly 12 years and the slow progress of the trial.
The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that continued detention, in circumstances where the trial was moving at an exceptionally slow pace and its conclusion was not foreseeable, would raise serious concerns under Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty.
The Court granted bail to Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar in connection with a 2011 FIR registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell. Their release will be subject to conditions imposed by the trial court and they must not be required to remain in custody in connection with any other case.
The two accused had challenged an April 24, 2026 order of the Delhi High Court, which had declined to grant them bail under the stringent provisions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
While considering their pleas, the Supreme Court examined the progress of the trial and noted that the accused had been in custody since 2014. The Court also took into account the fact that they had secured bail or suspension of sentence in connected cases registered in Rajasthan.
The Bench noted that the Delhi case involves 25 accused and that the prosecution has cited 197 witnesses. However, only 68 witnesses had been examined when the matter came up before the Supreme Court.
The pace of the proceedings was a particular concern for the Court. It noted that since January 2025, only two prosecution witnesses had been examined, with the examination of one of them remaining incomplete.
Against this backdrop, the Court found that there was no reasonable likelihood of the trial being concluded in the near future.
The prosecution case stems from the alleged activities of an Indian Mujahideen module. The investigation was initiated after the arrest of Pakistani national Mohd. Qateel Siddiqui in November 2011. According to the prosecution, information allegedly disclosed by Siddiqui led investigators to an alleged Rajasthan-based module of the banned organisation.
The investigating agency subsequently alleged that explosives and material purportedly capable of being used for manufacturing improvised explosive devices were recovered from premises linked to Ansari in Jodhpur and Azhar in Jaipur.
The allegations resulted in separate proceedings in Rajasthan as well as the Delhi case. The Supreme Court noted that the accusations in the three cases substantially overlapped.
In one of the Rajasthan cases, the accused were convicted in 2021. However, the Rajasthan High Court later suspended their sentences. They had also been granted bail in another connected case.
The Supreme Court further took note of the fact that another accused facing trial in the Delhi case, Mohd. Maroof, had already been granted bail.
The Bench ultimately held that the prolonged incarceration of Ansari and Azhar, coupled with the sluggish pace of the trial, warranted their release on bail.
The ruling reiterates that the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial cannot be rendered meaningless by prolonged incarceration. Even in cases involving stringent anti-terror legislation such as the UAPA, the Court observed that the length of custody and the realistic prospects of the trial concluding within a reasonable period remain relevant considerations while examining personal liberty under Article 21.
The post Supreme Court grants bail to two UAPA accused after 12 years in custody, cites right to speedy trial under Article 21 appeared first on India Legal.