Back
Grants Bail to Mohammad Saqib in Case After 8 Years
In a significant ruling, the on , granted bail to Mohammad Saqib alias Saqib Iftekar, who had been in custody for nearly eight years under the ). A Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed the , setting aside the 's order rejecting bail, and directed Saqib's release on .
Eight Years Behind Bars, Trial Nowhere in Sight
Saqib was arrested on , in connection with FIR No. RC-38/2018//DLI, registered by the ) for alleged offences under Sections 120B, 121, 121A, and 122 of the , various provisions of the (including Sections 17, 18, 18B, 20, 38, and 39), and Sections 4 and 5 of the . The accused him of being a member of the pro-IS group and of propagating the ideology of and . He was also alleged to have facilitated contact with militants in Jammu and Kashmir and procured weapons.
The trial, however, made slow progress. As the court noted,
"out of 120 witnesses cited by the prosecution, statements of only 40 witnesses have been recorded."
Even after the indicated it would drop 39 witnesses, the Bench observed that
"the trial is not likely to end any time soon."
This delay, coupled with the length of incarceration, became the central ground for the bail plea.
The Allegations: From Madrasa to Terror Module?
The 's case against Saqib included allegations that he visited Kashmir with co-accused Muhammad Absar in and to request an acquaintance, Reyaz Ahmad Najar, to facilitate a meeting with militants. The prosecution also claimed that Saqib introduced the key accused, Mufti Mohammad Suhail, to Naim @ Mohd. Naeem for arms procurement. Additionally, electronic evidence from his phone allegedly showed chats supporting terrorist organizations and references to financial contributions for jihad.
Defense Argues Peripheral Role, Points to Witness Testimony
Saqib's counsel, , contended that his client was not part of the core module but was merely a . He argued that the three key witnesses concerning the Kashmir visits—PW-27 Reyaz Ahmad Najar, PW-35 Zubair Siddique Lone, and PW-37 (a protected witness)—had already been examined and their statements did not implicate Saqib. A of Najar's testimony, he submitted, showed that Saqib neither requested a meeting with militants nor expressed interest in one. With these witnesses already , the defense argued that continued detention served no purpose.
Prosecution Cites Serious Charges, Opposes Bail
Special Public Prosecutor opposed the , emphasizing the gravity of the allegations. He argued that Saqib was instrumental in connecting the group's motivators to arms suppliers and that he had attempted to establish contact with terrorists for training. The prosecution also pointed to incriminating pamphlets and electronic material recovered from Saqib's possession. Mr. Tyagi urged the court not to consider testimony recorded after the 's bail rejection, suggesting Saqib should instead approach the afresh.
Court Weighs Against Restrictions
The High Court undertook a careful balancing exercise. It referred to its earlier decision in
, which discussed the interplay between (right to speedy trial) and (which imposes restrictions on bail). The court cited the 's observation in
that
"the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a
and the period of incarceration already undergone has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence."
The Bench also noted the 's recent guidance in that the inquiry into delay is contextual and must consider the nature of allegations, stage of trial, and risks of release. While acknowledging that a larger bench reference on this issue is pending in , the court relied on to hold that a pending reference does not prevent the High Court from applying existing law.
' Not Grave Enough': Key Observations
The court rejected the prosecution's plea to ignore post-bail-rejection testimony, noting that the itself had been adjourned to facilitate recording of these witnesses. After perusing their statements, the court found
"no reason to deny bail to the appellant on their imputations."
The Bench deliberately refrained from detailed analysis to avoid prejudicing the trial, but stated:
"We may only state that
we do not find them grave enough to prolong the period of detention of the appellant during trial."
Regarding the arms procurement allegation, the court observed that the case depended largely on the of co-accused Naim. As for the electronic chats, the court conceded they were "grave in nature," but held that given the long period of incarceration, they did not justify continued denial of bail.
Strict Conditions for Release
The court directed Saqib's release on a personal bond of ₹50,000 with two sureties. He must surrender his passport and cannot leave the country without permission. Saqib is restricted to his native district Hapur, except to attend trial in Delhi or report to the 's Lucknow office every fortnight. He must use only one mobile number, keep it switched on, and not change his address without notice. The court also prohibited him from contacting witnesses, tampering with evidence, making public statements about the case, or circulating anti-national material on social media.
The judgment clarifies that these observations are only for the purpose of bail and shall not be treated as findings on the merits of the case. The prosecution retains the right to seek cancellation of bail if conditions are breached.
With this order, the has once again underscored that , even in serious cases under special statutes, cannot be allowed to become a substitute for punishment. The , the court affirmed, remains a that must be given due weight.
