Delhi HC Rejects NIA Appeal Against Bail Granted to Mateen Ahmed Bhat in Terror Conspiracy Case

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the bail granted to Mateen Ahmed Bhat in a case involving allegations of conspiracy linked to terrorist organisations operating in Jammu and Kashmir. A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj delivered the judgment on October 30, 2026, holding that the trial court’s bail order did not warrant interference.

The Bench emphasised that an appeal against the grant of bail must be examined within established legal limits. The seriousness of the allegations alone does not determine whether a bail order should be set aside.

Background

The NIA registered the case under provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Bhat was arrested on October 13, 2021, and was named as accused number 10 in the charge sheet filed in April 2022.

The agency alleged that he was connected with individuals associated with banned terrorist organisations and had allegedly provided logistical assistance, helped facilitate the movement of weapons and participated in efforts to recruit local youth. The prosecution also relied on digital material, including audio clips recovered from a mobile phone.

On May 3, 2023, the Special NIA Court granted him bail. The trial court questioned whether the material presented against him sufficiently supported the alleged involvement in the wider conspiracy. The NIA subsequently challenged that decision before the High Court.

The High Court examined the distinction between an appeal challenging the original grant of bail and an application seeking cancellation of bail. It relied on Supreme Court decisions explaining that an appellate court must assess whether the original order was illegal, arbitrary or perverse, rather than conduct a detailed examination of the prosecution's evidence.

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi, reiterating the applicable principles:

“The Court concerned must not venture into a threadbare analysis of the evidence adduced by prosecution. The merits of such evidence must not be adjudicated at the stage of bail.”

The judges found that the trial court had considered the restrictions imposed by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA while examining whether the accusations appeared prima facie true. The Bench also clarified that the subsequent framing of charges did not, by itself, establish grounds for allowing the NIA's appeal.

Addressing the seriousness of the allegations and the expected duration of the trial, the Court observed:

“Though the allegations against the respondent are grave, the same have to be tested in Trial, which is not likely to conclude anytime soon, given the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution and remaining to be examined.”

The Bench further referred to an earlier observation concerning whether certain witness testimony actually referred to Bhat, noting that this issue had arisen in separate proceedings challenging the framing of charges.

After examining the applicable legal principles and the trial court's reasoning, the High Court concluded that the NIA had not established sufficient grounds to interfere with the bail order. It dismissed the appeal and directed that observations made in the judgment must not influence the trial court's assessment of the prosecution's case.

No order as to costs was passed.

Case Details

Case Title: National Investigation Agency v. Mateen Ahmed Bhat

Case Number: CRL.A. 562/2023

Judges: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj

Decision Date: 30 October 2026