Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Alleged IM Operative in 2008 Delhi Serial Blasts Case, Says National Security Prevails Over Liberty

A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed Peerbhoy's third bail application, noting that where considerations of personal liberty come into conflict with the sovereignty, integrity and security of the nation, the latter must necessarily prevail.

Finding a prima facie case against him, the bench also rejected the contention that his prolonged 17-year incarceration would automatically override the statutory bar under Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

"Bearing in mind the gravity of the offences involved, which are serial bomb blasts, the qualifications of the Appellant, the role of the Appellant as a media cell head of the ‘Indian Mujahideen’, and the actual death toll that occurred, the long period of incarceration, in the opinion of the Court, would not by itself be sufficient to grant bail to the Appellant" the Division Bench observed.

The case against the appellant pertains to the coordinated serial blasts that rocked the national capital on September 13, 2008, at Karol Bagh, Greater Kailash-1, and Connaught Place, leaving 26 people dead and 135 injured.

In its 61-page-long order, the Court strongly emphasised that the multiple deaths and injuries resulting from the orchestrated serial bomb blasts demonstrate that the offences were of a grave nature, and cannot be equated to ordinary criminal offences.

"These are offences which required meticulous planning, substantial funding, accumulation of weapons, and methodical execution pursuant to a calculated strategy" the Division Bench opined.

According to the prosecution’s case, exactly five minutes before the blasts, the Indian Mujahideen sent an email titled "MESSAGE OF DEATH" to various domestic and international media houses, claiming responsibility for the impending terror strikes.

Peerbhoy, alongside co-accused Mubin Kadar Shaikh, allegedly travelled to Mumbai and hacked into the unsecured Wi-Fi network of M/s Kamran Power Controls Pvt. Ltd. in Chembur to transmit the said email.

The laptops recovered at the instance of the accused contained highly sophisticated file-erasing and disk-wiping software, such as HEX "00" and 'STELLAR WIPE', which generate logs showing data deletion precisely on the evening of the blasts.

Forensic experts later retrieved the exact PDF documents from the wiped hard drives, which were attached to the terror email, which included one document titled "EYE FOR AN EYE, THE DUST WILL NEVER SETTLE DOWN".

The owner of 'Modern Technology' in Mumbai identified Peerbhoy and his co-accused as the individuals who purchased the laptops used in the crime. Furthermore, spy cameras, radio frequency signal detectors, and Wi-Fi hotspot finders were recovered from Peerbhoy's possession.

Considering this strong evidence against him, the Division Bench said that being an educated computer professional with specialised knowledge of cyber security and hacking techniques, he was fully aware of the impact of his conduct.

"Such level of coordination, planning, funding, logistics and real time communication, was possible only through deliberate and skilled deployment of technology. The Appellant, was prima facie, at the centre of this incident" it said.

The counsels for Accused-Peerbhoy relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in K.A. Najeeb to argue that his 17-year pre-trial incarceration violated his fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21, warranting bail despite the UAPA's strict rigours.

Rejecting his prayer for bail, the Division Bench said that prolonged incarceration alone cannot be the decisive factor in granting bail in such cases.

Relying on the Supreme Court's 2026 ruling in Gulfisha Fatima, the High Court remarked: "The scale of the carnage, the nationwide panic that ensued, and the cold deliberateness with which the organisation publicly announced the attacks, even before they were carried out, together reflect an offence of grave nature".

Though the Court acknowledged that the Appellant has remained in custody for a considerable period as an undertrial prisoner, it noted that the trial is presently at its fag end and has reached the concluding stage.

"Releasing the Appellant at this juncture, when the cross-examination of the remaining two witnesses is yet to be completed, could have an adverse impact on the ongoing trial proceeding" it said.

The Division Bench further said that his technical expertise, combined with the leadership position attributed to him within the ‘Indian Mujahideen’, prima facie suggests that he is extremely well connected with the said organisation and its network.

"the propensity of him getting involved in similar activities upon release, is extremely high. In the case of persons such as the Appellant, who are alleged to be part of banned terrorist organisations, there exists a continuing and real threat that they are likely to indulge in similar activities upon release" it noted.

The Division Bench ultimately said that this consideration, along with the prima facie material on record, and the role attributed to the Appellant, is a factor that weighs heavily against the grant of bail.

Ultimately, holding that the prosecution had crossed the threshold of proving the accusations as prima facie true, the High Court dismissed the appeal and directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within the Supreme Court's mandated timeline.