Supreme Court Issues Notice on Bail Plea of UAPA Accused in Alleged LeT Terror Plot

The Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi took note of the prolonged incarceration of the petitioner and sought a response from the State and investigating agency.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agarwal along with AOR Chand Qureshi appeared for Mansoori.

Mansoori, accused of aiding an alleged Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative in a conspiracy to carry out terror attacks in Maharashtra, Gujarat, and Uttar Pradesh, was arrested on May 16, 2018. He has been charged under Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the UAPA and Sections 420, 465, 468, 471, 201, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

According to the prosecution, co-accused Mirza Faisal Hasan Mirza, who has since been granted bail by the Bombay High Court on August 27, 2024, allegedly told investigators that he was trained in Pakistan and that his cousin Farooque had instructed him to contact Mansoori for transporting arms from Surat to Mumbai.

The petitioner has denied any involvement in terror-related activities and contended that there is no independent evidence to corroborate the prosecution’s version.The plea states that neither was he named in the FIR nor in any complaint. Even in police statements, co-accused Faisal did not name Mansoori, the petition says.

The Appeal highlights that the High Court rejected the bail plea solely on the basis that an earlier application had been dismissed on merits in 2020 by another division bench and that the Supreme Court had refused to interfere. The petitioner argues that the High Court failed to consider subsequent developments particularly the bail granted to a co-accused on parity, and the prolonged period of pre-trial detention.

In its 2025 order, the Bombay High Court had observed: “Though Mr. Shaikh [counsel for Mansoori] tried to reopen the argument on merits by submitting that this material was not incriminating, it is not permissible for us to go beyond the observations made by the earlier Division Bench… confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.”

The High Court also noted that its consideration was confined only to the effect of the co-accused being granted bail and the long period of undertrial custody.

In the SLP, the petitioner stated that the High Court failed to independently evaluate the facts, and did not allow arguments on merits. Further, it erroneously presumed a prima facie case existed against him without reviewing the case file or hearing submissions.

The SLP further states that the prosecution case relies on WhatsApp chats between Mansoori and Farooque, images of motorcycles, GSPC tanks, and an ISIS flag allegedly found on the petitioner’s phone.

It states that the chats were misinterpreted, and none of the content demonstrates any terrorist conspiracy. It argues that the GSPC photographs were taken during a permitted site visit and that the presence of a passport contradicts the claim that Mansoori was asked to “make” a fake one.

“It is the prosecution’s own case that the petitioner was working as a scrap dealer in Jogeshwari, Mumbai. The content recovered from his mobile does not establish criminal intent. The passport was genuine, and its existence undermines the alleged conversation,” the plea states.

The petition further contends that of the 83 prosecution witnesses, only 29 have been examined in the past seven years, and there is no indication that the trial will conclude soon. It reads that he is being denied bail solely due to the “seriousness of allegations,” without any substantive evidence or independent material pointing to his role.

The petitioner also sought parity with co-accused Faisal, who is already out on bail, and urged the Court to consider the excessive delay, lack of evidence, and constitutional right to a speedy trial.