Delhi High Court Grants Bail To Two Accused In UAPA Terror Conspiracy Case, Cites 4 Years Long Incarceration And Limited Role

The Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to two accused in a terror conspiracy case investigated by the National Investigation Agency, observing that their prolonged incarceration of over four years and the limited role attributed to them justified conditional release pending trial.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed the appeals filed by Haris Nisar Langoo and Zamin Adil Bhat, challenging the special court order rejecting their bail applications.

The case arises out of an FIR registered by NIA in 2021 alleging a larger conspiracy involving proscribed terrorist organisations and their alleged over-ground workers.

According to the prosecution, the case relates to a conspiracy allegedly orchestrated by handlers linked to banned outfits such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammad and others, to carry out terrorist activities in Jammu & Kashmir and other parts of India.

The appellants were accused of participating in online propaganda, being members of certain social-media groups, and allegedly sharing radical content.

Granting them bail, the Court said that there was no allegation that the appellants created any such groups as alleged or shared any objectionable material therein.

“For the purposes of the present appeal, suffice it is to say that the appellants, given their long period of incarceration and the role attributed to them by the prosecution, have been able to meet the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Gulfisha Fatima (supra) for being released on bail,” the Court said.

Further, the Court held that the material found on the digital devices of the appellants, which may even be propagating anti-national activities, may not justify the continuation of their prolonged detention at the stage of trial.

It added that the distinction between ideological alignment and operational participation is constitutionally significant, and must be borne in mind while applying the prima facie standard under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA to the specific facts and material attributed to each of the appellants.

“We, therefore, are of the view that taking into consideration the allegations against the appellant(s), their continued detention may amount to a violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The appellant(s) have already undergone prolonged incarceration of around 4 years and 4 months, without any certainty of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. In our considered opinion, and keeping in view the role assigned to the appellant(s), the continued detention of the appellant(s) at this stage would not serve the ends of justice,” the Court said.

Regarding the health condition of Langoo— stated to be suffering from cervical spondylosis, the Court observed that while it does not treat medical grounds as independently decisive in cases governed by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, the state of health of an undertrial prisoner is a relevant consideration in the overall assessment of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

“Prolonged pre-trial detention of a person whose alleged role is predominantly digital and non-violent in nature, and who is additionally suffering from a documented ailment, further tilts the balance in favour of conditional release rather than continued incarceration,” the judges said.

Counsel for Langoo: Ms. Tara Narula and Ms. Priya Vats, Advocates

Counsel for Bhat: Mr. Jawahar Raja, Ms. Tamana Pankaj, Ms. Priya Vats, Ms.Sonal Sarda, Ms.Aditi Saraswat and Ms.Nitai Hinduja Advocates

Counsel for NIA: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Senior Advocate/SPP with Ms. Asmita Singh, Mr. Shashank Jain, Mr.Geet Kumar, Mr. Prabhat Bajpai, Advocates

Title: HARIS NISAR LANGOO v. NIA and ZAMIN ADIL BHAT v. NIA

Click here to read order