The Delhi High Court today granted bail to Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar, a UAPA accused in an NIA case involving alleged links with the pro-ISIS group Harkat-ul-Harb-E-Islam, after he spent nearly 8 years in custody and the Court found that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon.

A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed Saqib's appeal against the rejection of his bail plea by the Patiala House Court.

Saqib was taken into custody on December 26, 2018. The High Court noted that the prosecution had cited 120 witnesses, of whom only 40 had been examined. Even after the NIA said it would drop 39 witnesses, the Court held that the trial was "not likely to end any time soon."

What are the allegations against Saqib?

The case arises from a 2018 FIR, registered under Sections 120B, 121, 121A and 122 of the IPC, Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA and Sections 4 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act.

According to the prosecution, Saqib was a member of the pro-ISIS Harkat-ul-Harb-E-Islam group, propagated ISIS ideology and supported the ideology of Jaish-e-Muhammad. The investigation alleged that he established contacts in the Tral region of Jammu and Kashmir to arrange local terrorists and was involved in arranging weapons through his contacts in western Uttar Pradesh.

The prosecution further alleged that Saqib travelled to Jammu and Kashmir with co-accused Muhammad Absar in July 2017 and July 2018 to establish contact with militants for training and procurement of weapons. The NIA relied on witness statements, CDR analysis, electronic material and recoveries from Saqib's residence.

Saqib’s counsel argued that even as per the allegations contained in the charge-sheet against the appellant, the appellant is not alleged to be part of the core module of the terror plot, but at best, was only a peripheral participant.

It was submitted that the only allegations against the appellant are that he visited Kashmir along with Accused No. 6/Muhammad Absar in July 2017 and July 2018 to request PW-27/Sh.Reyaz Ahmad Najar to facilitate a meeting with the militants.

Admittedly, PW-27 knew the appellant from before as they studied from the same madrasa in Uttar Pradesh. He submits that a holistic reading of the statement of PW-27 would show that the appellant neither requested to facilitate the meeting with the militants, nor showed any interest for the same.

Opposing bail, NIA's Special Public Prosecutor argued that the seriousness of the allegations and Saqib's alleged role in connecting members of the terror module justified his continued custody.

What are the High Court’s observations?

The High Court considered the prolonged incarceration against the restrictions imposed by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. It noted that constitutional courts retain the power to protect an accused's Article 21 rights where prolonged detention and delay in trial make continued incarceration constitutionally problematic, while also emphasising that delay cannot be treated as an automatic ground for bail.

The High Court specifically referred to its observations made in the June 2026 judgment in the case of Khuram Parvez v. National Investigation Agency.

In 'Khurram', the Bench had referred to the Supreme Court's recent judgments on the interaction between Article 21 and Section 43D(5), including the reference of the issue to a larger Bench. It had also noted that the constitutional inquiry into delay is contextual and must take into account the nature of allegations, the accused's role, the stage of proceedings and the realistic trajectory of the trial.

Importantly, examining the records of the case, the High Court said it had "intentionally refrained" from undertaking a detailed analysis of the witness statements so as not to prejudice the trial.

However, after examining the statements of the three principal witnesses concerning Saqib's alleged Kashmir visits, it found no reason to deny bail on the basis of their evidence.

The Court observed: "Prima facie we do not find them grave enough to prolong the period of detention of the appellant during trial."

As regards the electronic evidence, the Bench said that the chats allegedly recovered from Saqib's phone were “grave in nature” but, considering the long period of incarceration, did not justify continued denial of bail.

The Court ultimately held: "Having considered the statements of the witnesses and the allegations against the appellant, and being moved particularly by the long period of incarceration of the appellant, we are of the opinion that the appellant has been able to make out a case for being released on bail."

Saqib has been directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties of the same amount. He must surrender his passport, cannot leave the country without permission, and cannot leave Hapur except for attending trial or reporting to the NIA. He has also been directed to report to the NIA's Lucknow office once every fortnight.

The Court further restrained him from contacting or influencing the prosecution or protected witnesses, tampering with evidence, making public statements concerning the merits of the case, or disseminating anti-national material on social media.

While setting aside the trial court's order rejecting bail, the Bench made it clear that its observations were only for the purpose of consideration of bail and should not be treated as findings on the merits of the case.

Case Title: MOHAMMAD SAQIB@ SAQIB IFTEKAR v NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

Date of Judgment: September 14, 2026

Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja