Kanhaiya Lal Murder: Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail, Upholds Prima Facie Terror Case

Kanhaiya Lal Murder: Rajasthan High Court Denies Bail, Upholds Prima Facie Terror Case

Jaipur, October 3, 2026 – The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed bail appeals of five accused in the brutal 2022 beheading of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal Teli, holding that the “calculated, theatrical assault on the psychological sovereignty of the country” disentitled them to liberty at this stage. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain upheld the Special NIA Court’s orders rejecting bail under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Anatomy of a Terror Act

The case stems from the June 28, 2022 murder of Kanhaiya Lal inside his tailoring shop. The deceased had earlier posted a Facebook comment supporting then-BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma’s remarks on Prophet Mohammad, triggering local protests. Despite installing CCTV cameras, two assailants – Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Mohammed Gos – stormed the shop, stabbed and beheaded the victim, recorded the act, and circulated the video online with threats to the Prime Minister. The NIA took over the investigation and charged multiple individuals under the IPC and UAPA Sections 16, 18, and 20.

The five appellants – Wasim Ali (A-6), Muslim Khan (A-9), Mohsin Khan (A-3), Mohammad Mohsin (A-5), and Asif Hussain (A-4) – had been in custody since their arrests in July and August 2022. They argued that there was no direct evidence linking them to the murder scene and that their prolonged incarceration of over four and a half years violated Article 21.

Balancing Liberty Against National Security

The Bench meticulously examined Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which prohibits bail if the court finds “reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation against such person is prima facie true.” Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), the court reiterated that at the bail stage, it must assess prosecution material at face value without conducting a mini-trial. Since charges had already been framed in January and February 2024, the court noted that “a very strong suspicion was founded upon the materials,” raising the threshold for the accused.

The appellants heavily invoked the principle from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb (2021) and Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA (2026), arguing that prolonged pre-trial detention melts down statutory bail restrictions. However, the court distinguished the present case, noting that the trial was progressing “actively and at a rapid pace.” The NIA informed that the witness list had been trimmed from 180 to 89, with nearly 30 material witnesses already examined. “It cannot be said that the trial is entirely stalled or that there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time,” the Bench observed.

Key Observations

The judgment opened with a philosophical flourish, quoting Mahatma Gandhi: “Terrorism and deception are weapons not of the strong, but of the weak.” The Bench further stated:

“Terrorism is not merely an assault on a physical body; it is a calculated, theatrical assault on the psychological sovereignty of the country. Its ultimate objective is not just to commit an offence, but the assassination of peace. It seeks to replace the ‘Rule of Law’ with the ‘Rule of Fear’.”

Addressing the statutory scheme, the court emphasized that the UAPA was “not forged in the tranquility of peace” but “born in the crucible of necessity.” It declared that the law “must possess the teeth to bite those who attempt to devour the nation's harmony.”

On the role of the accused, the Bench held that the charge-sheet disclosed a “deep-rooted criminal conspiracy” and that the appellants played “active and specific roles” in facilitating the crime. “Criminal conspiracy for such an organized terror activity has a profound and devastating impact on society at large, far exceeding that of an individual, ordinary crime.”

Decision and Implications

Dismissing all five appeals, the court affirmed the impugned orders of October 9 and November 12, 2024. It clarified that its observations were limited to the bail stage and would not influence the trial on merits. The ruling underscores that while Article 21 remains paramount, the UAPA’s special bail regime must be enforced where a prima facie case exists and the trial is making progress. The decision also signals that the Najeeb principle of “melt down” is not automatic; courts will examine the actual pace of proceedings before overriding statutory restrictions.

The case now continues before the Special NIA Court in Jaipur, with the prosecution expected to conclude its examination of remaining witnesses in the coming months.