The Delhi High Court has granted bail to Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), IPC and the Explosive Substances Act, taking note of his prolonged incarceration of nearly eight years and the slow progress of the trial. The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja observed that, given the long period already spent in custody, the appellant had made out a case for release on bail.
Background
The case arose from FIR No. RC-38/2018/NIA/DLI registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) at its Police Station in New Delhi. The FIR invoked Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 of the Indian Penal Code, Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. The appeal was filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the Trial Court's order dated May 27, 2024, rejecting bail.
The prosecution, relying on the charge-sheet, alleged that the accused was a member of the Pro-IS group Harkat-ul-Harb-E-Islam, propagated ISIS ideology and supported the ideology of Jaish-e-Muhammad. The charge-sheet attributed to him a role in establishing contacts in the Tral area of Jammu and Kashmir and alleged that he assisted in the formation of a group by arranging weapons through contacts in western Uttar Pradesh. The investigation also referred to alleged visits to Kashmir and an alleged role in facilitating contacts for obtaining terrorist training.
The prosecution further alleged that the accused had introduced members of the alleged module to another accused for procurement of arms. The charge-sheet referred to an alleged July 2018 visit to the Meerut area, where weapons and ammunition were allegedly procured. It also relied on witness statements and a disclosure and pointing-out proceeding concerning the alleged arms transaction. During a search on December 26, 2018, three mobile phones, a tablet and other material were also recovered from the accused's residence.
The accused had remained in custody since December 26, 2018. By the time the High Court considered the appeal, he had spent almost eight years in jail, while the prosecution had cited 120 witnesses and only 40 had been examined. Although the prosecution stated that 39 witnesses would be dropped, the High Court observed that the trial was still not likely to conclude soon. The defence also relied on the examination of the principal witnesses concerning the alleged Kashmir visits, whose statements were considered by the High Court while examining the bail plea.
Court's Observation
The Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja considered the constitutional protection of personal liberty under Article 21 alongside the restrictions applicable to bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
The High Court noted that prolonged incarceration cannot be considered in isolation and that the inquiry must take into account the nature of the allegations, the stage of the proceedings, the realistic trajectory of the trial, the role attributed to the accused and the risks associated with release. It also noted that delay cannot be treated as a solitary determinant.
The Court further noted that the principal witnesses concerning the accused's alleged visits to Kashmir had already been examined. After examining their statements, the Bench found no sufficient reason to continue detention on the basis of those imputations.
Decision
The High Court held that the accused had made out a case for bail, particularly considering the lengthy period of incarceration. It set aside the Trial Court's order and directed release on bail subject to several conditions, including a ₹50,000 personal bond with two sureties, restrictions on travel, regular trial appearances and reporting to the NIA office in Lucknow every fortnight.
The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the bail proceedings and would not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.
Case Title: Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar v. National Investigation Agency
Case Number: CRL.A. 676/2024
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Decision Date: September 14, 2026
