SC seeks Delhi police response to alleged Indian Mujahideen’s bail pleas

File image. | Photo credit: The Hindu

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026) asked the Delhi Police to respond to bail pleas filed by two men accused of running the Rajasthan module of the banned Indian Mujahideen outfit. The accused, who have been in custody for 12 years, are challenging the Delhi High Court’s order denying them bail.

The Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, relied upon by the Supreme Court while rejecting the two men’s bail pleas, has since been referred to a larger Bench, the Bench noted.

This is the latest in a series of Supreme Court hearings focusing on the legal debate between national security interests and constitutional guarantees of individual liberty, particularly in cases under the tough Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

‘justified order’

Counsel for the accused informed Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi that the two men were in custody since March 2014 when they were arrested by a special all-Delhi and charged under various provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik said the Supreme Court’s order denying bail was “justified” and was in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its January 5 judgment in the Delhi riots conspiracy case involving Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam. The decision ruled that the strict limitations on bail under s 43D(5) of the UAPA would take precedence over considerations such as prolonged imprisonment and delay in trial.

The Bench, however, pointed out that the January 5 judgment was subsequently referred to a larger Bench for review.

“What reasoned order? The judgment relied upon has since been referred to a larger panel… You will have to file a counter-affidavit,” Justice Bagchi said in his oral remarks.

Different opinions within the SC

On 22 May, while hearing the bail applications of Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale asked Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant to constitute a larger bench to determine how the Supreme Court’s three-judge decision in Union of India v. 2 KAAP o Najeb applied to extended cases under the KAAP o Najeb. imprisonment and delays in the process. He pointed out that an “authoritative solution” to the legal position was needed.

The Supreme Court in Najeeb recognized that prolonged imprisonment and delay in the commencement or completion of legal proceedings could justify the granting of bail notwithstanding the strict limitations contained in anti-terrorism laws.

The reference was prompted by the divergent views expressed by the Coordinator Benches regarding the jurisprudence on bail under the UAPA. Just days earlier, Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan had dissented from the January 5 judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, authored by Justice Kumar, noting that the decision adopted an unduly restrictive approach to the granting of bail under the Anti-Terrorism Act.

Najeeb will apply with ‘full force’

Accordingly, Justice Bagchi on Wednesday observed that the Najeeb precedent would apply with “full force” in this case given the length of remand the accused had undergone.

“The KA Najeeb case will apply here with full force, subject to the way it was interpreted in the Gulfisha Fatima case. You will have to file an objection,” he said.

The bench directed the Delhi Police to file their counter-affidavit by July 20 and posted the matter for further hearing on July 27.

‘He doesn’t deserve to be fired’

On April 24, the Supreme Court rejected the bail pleas of Mr. Ansari and Mr. Azhar, saying they were active members of the banned terrorist organization Indian Mujahideen and key operatives involved in the operation of its Rajasthan module. The court further noted that they maintained links with the organization’s leadership in both India and Pakistan.

“The manner in which the appellants were completely entrenched in the activities of the Indian Mujahideen leaves no doubt that in order to prevent them from indulging in anti-national and terrorist activities and as they pose a flight risk and could also influence the witnesses who have not been deposed in the case, they do not deserve to be granted bail,” Justice M. Benchba said.

Both the accused claimed in their pleadings that a similarly situated co-accused had already been released on bail. They also pointed to the fact that they had spent almost 12 years in custody waiting for the trial to end.

The case has its origins in November 2011, when the police arrested an alleged member of the Indian Mujahideen. According to the Delhi Police, information gathered during the investigation led to the identification of several other suspects, which culminated in the arrest of 18 persons and the recovery of explosives, chemicals, arms and ammunition.

Published – 17 Jun 2026 18:48 IST