The Supreme Court granted bail to two alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives held since 2014 in a Delhi terror case, observing that prolonged incarceration without a likely trial conclusion violated their right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution
Published Date – 29 July 2026, 06:51 PM
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has granted bail to two alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives, who were in custody since 2014, saying their continued incarceration was “grossly violative” of the right to liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that the petitioners, Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar, were incarcerated in connection with a terror case lodged in Delhi for nearly 12 years with no prospect of an early conclusion of the trial.
“The progress of the trial has been extremely slow and there appears to be no prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future,” the bench said in its July 27 order.
It also noted that one of the co-accused was already enlarged on bail.
The top court passed the order on separate pleas filed by Ansari and Azhar challenging an April order of the Delhi High Court that had refused to grant them bail in the case registered by the Special Cell of Delhi Police in November 2011.
“…we feel that the continued incarceration of the petitioners in this case is grossly violative of the right to liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,” the bench said.
It noted that the petitioners were arrested in connection with three FIRs, including two registered in Rajasthan, in 2014 and had remained in custody ever since.
The bench said that in one of the cases lodged in Rajasthan, both the petitioners were convicted by a trial court in March 2021 and subsequently, the sentence awarded to them was suspended by the high court.
It said the trial in another case registered against them in Rajasthan was pending and both the petitioners had already been granted bail in that case.
“Having appreciated the submissions advanced at bar and upon going through the record, we find that the petitioners have, more or less, been implicated in three separate FIRs for overlapping allegations,” the bench said.
It directed that the petitioners be released on bail on such terms and conditions as may be imposed by the trial court in connection with the FIR registered in Delhi, subject to them not being required in any other case.
The bench said the petitioners would continue to cooperate with the trial.
It said if the trial court or the prosecution finds that they are delaying the conclusion of the trial, failing to cooperate with the trial, or otherwise misusing the liberty granted to them, it would be open to the prosecution to apprise the apex court about it for appropriate orders.
The bench made clear that observations made by it were confined to the adjudication of petitions seeking bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.
On June 17, the top court sought a response from Delhi Police on the bail pleas of the two accused.
The case originated when an alleged Indian Mujahideen member, Mohd Quateel Siddiqui, was apprehended in November 2011 and he purportedly made disclosures regarding the establishment of a Rajasthan module of the outfit to carry out terror activities in and around Delhi.
Based on the disclosures and information received, the Special Cell arrested several individuals and seized a large quantity of explosives and ammunition.
