Read Time: 10 minutes
The court noted that the appellant was imprisoned for 11 years and therefore expressed the view that constitutional courts are not bound by prohibitory provisions of grant of bail under UAPA. The court opined that “a Constitutional Court...can exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to release an accused on bail who has been incarcerated for a long period of time”.
The Delhi High Court, recently, granted bail to a man involved in the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) accused of funding the Patna Serial Bomb Blasts of 2013 on the ground that “Appellant has already served 11 years and the trial is also likely to take a considerable period of time to conclude”.
The bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Dharmesh Sharma further noted that “Even with the trimmed list of witnesses of the prosecution, which now is stated to be about 165-170 people, is considered, only ten witnesses have been examined till date and more than 150 witnesses are yet to be examined”.
Per NIA, the appellant was part of the banned organization Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and financially supported Haider Ali, which was allegedly used for the Patna bomb blasts. However, the Appellant was not formally accused in the Patna case.
The Appellant, represented by Advocate Aarif Ali, had given money to Haider Ali only because he was informed that Ali was in financial distress. It was argued that the Appellant lacked knowledge of Ali’s alleged activities. Furthermore, it was asserted that the Appellant was only charged under Sections 17 and 18 of the UAPA, not under more severe provisions.
The NIA, represented by Special Public Prosecutor Shilpa Singh, opposed the bail plea arguing that SIMI had been banned in 2001, and its former members had formed the Indian Mujahideen (IM), which established various training modules. The Appellant was allegedly part of IM's Ranchi module and admitted to providing funds to Haider Ali, implicated in the Patna blasts. The prosecution further accused the Appellant of promoting jihad, recruiting youths, and highlighting atrocities against Muslims. It was alleged that funds collected as zakat were used for terror financing. Video evidence purportedly supported these claims.
The NIA also argued that the Appellant posed a flight risk, citing a co-accused who fled to Pakistan and attempted to relocate his family there. Regarding delays in trial proceedings, the NIA stated that seven Presiding Officers had been changed in the Special Court, and the prosecution could not be held accountable.
The court, upon examining the order on charge dated 31st March 2023, noted that the Trial Court explicitly noted the primary allegations against the Appellant. The first allegation was that the Appellant had paid Rs. 30,000/- to Mr. Haider Ali. The second allegation was that the Appellant incited participants to engage in violent jihad.
A review of the order revealed that the Appellant was facing trial solely on two allegations: (i) delivering speeches purportedly encouraging violent jihad and (ii) making a payment of Rs. 30,000/- to Haider Ali.
Considering Section 43(D)(5) of the UAPA, even if the prosecution's case was taken at its highest merit, the Appellant had already served 11 years in incarceration. Furthermore, the trial was expected to take significant time to conclude. Despite the prosecution trimming its list of witnesses to approximately 165-170 individuals, only ten witnesses had been examined to date, leaving more than 150 witnesses yet to be called.
Referring to the Supreme Court, the court emphasized the necessity of upholding the right to life and liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly in cases involving bail for undertrial prisoners subjected to prolonged detention.
“The Appellant has placed reliance on Union of India v. K.A Najeeb (Supra). In the said case a three judge Bench of the Supreme Court while dealing with an appeal against an order rejecting bail of an accused who was inter alia charged with Sections 16, 18, 18-B, 19 and 20 of the UAPA, emphasised the need to harmonise/balance the statutory considerations of UAPA and the right to life and liberty promised under Article 21”, the court added.
Notably, the court observed that a Constitutional Court was not strictly bound by the restrictive bail provisions under the UAPA and could exercise its constitutional jurisdiction to grant bail to an accused who had been incarcerated for an extended duration.
In this case, the court considered the following factors: 1. The prolonged incarceration of the Appellant; 2. The fact that co-accused individuals facing similar charges under the UAPA had either been released or sentenced to ten years of imprisonment; 3. The limited role of the Appellant in the alleged activities; and 4. The Appellant’s strong societal ties, particularly in Jharkhand, where his family resides.
Based on these considerations, the court decided to grant the Appellant regular bail. This was subject to the Appellant furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 10,000/- along with a surety of the same amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.
For Appellant: Advocates Aarif Ali, Pankaj Tiwari, Mujahid Ahmad, Shahid Nadeem, Naveen and Mohd. TansheedFor Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor Shilpa SinghCase Title: Ujjair Ahmad @ Ozair Ahmed v NIA (2025:DHC:215-DB)
Please Login or Register
