2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6231

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
Mohd. Saquib Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State Nct Of Delhi – Respondent
CRL.A. 95/2025 | CRL.A. 252/2025

Under the special statute, bail is the exception while jail is the rule. Prolonged incarceration and parity with co-accused are not absolute grounds for release where the prosecution demonstrates a strong prima facie case of involvement in terrorist activities and threats to the security of the State.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Bail under special statute - Standard for rejection - The inquiry at the stage of bail is restricted to whether there are reasonable grounds for believing the accusation is prima facie true, which is a lighter degree of satisfaction than that required for framing charges or discharge. Once this threshold is met, bail must be refused as a rule. (Paras 53, 56, 57)

(B) Article 21 of the Constitution of India - Right to speedy trial and personal liberty - Application in special statutes - Prolonged incarceration per se does not mandate bail, especially when the accused is charged with offences implicating the sovereignty and security of the State. Delay is a trigger for heightened judicial scrutiny rather than a 'trump card' that displaces statutory restrictions provided under the special enactment. (Paras 62, 64, 66)

(C) Bail - Parity - Principle of - Parity cannot be claimed as a matter of right or in a mechanical manner; it requires a focused assessment of the individual role and the quality of material recovered from the respective accused, rather than mere involvement in the same offence. (Paras 68-70)

Facts of the case:
The appellants sought bail in a terror-related criminal case, having remained in custody for over a decade. They had previously been convicted by a trial court in a separate FIR relating to the same conspiracy, where substantial quantities of explosives, detonators, and electronic components intended for terrorist activities were recovered. The appellants' appeal against said conviction has seen their sentence suspended, but they remained in custody in connection with the primary case where they stand charged with membership of a banned terrorist organization and conspiracy to cause explosions.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the appellants failed to meet the criteria for bail under the special statutory framework due to the gravity of the offences and the robust prima facie material, including previous conviction and recovery of explosive materials. Continued detention is justified by national security concerns, and the principle of parity with a co-accused was rejected because the material seized from the appellants far exceeded the digital-only evidence recovered from others.

Issues: Whether the appellants are entitled to bail solely on the grounds of parity with a co-accused and prolonged period of incarceration, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions under the special Act and findings of a previous conviction.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that where an accused is involved in activities threatening national security, the statutory embargo on bail cannot be bypassed by the passage of time alone. A comparative evaluation of the individual's role and the strength of the prima facie case establishes that the appellants' detention is constitutionally permissible given the serious nature of the charges and the evidence on record.

Result: Appeals dismissed.