The Delhi High Court has dismissed the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) appeal challenging the grant of bail to Mateen Ahmed Bhat, an accused in an alleged terror conspiracy case involving members of banned terrorist organisations Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Hizbul Mujahideen.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj held that the trial court had rightly considered the material on record while granting bail to Bhat under the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Court observed that an appeal against an order granting bail cannot be treated on the same footing as an application seeking cancellation of bail.

It reiterated that a superior court can interfere with a bail order only on grounds such as illegality, perversity, arbitrariness or failure to consider relevant factors.

"Setting aside an order granting bail and cancellation of bail are two distinct concepts," the Court observed.

The NIA had challenged a May 03, 2023 order passed by the Special NIA Court at Patiala House Courts, which granted bail to Bhat in a case registered under Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 123 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 of the UAPA.

According to the prosecution, Bhat was allegedly radicalised following the abrogation of Article 370 and came in contact with a Hizbul Mujahideen terrorist operating under the code name 'Sabjar'.

The NIA alleged that he worked as an Over Ground Worker (OGW), providing logistical support to active terrorists, facilitating the movement of weapons and ammunition, and recruiting local youth into terror ranks.

The prosecution further alleged that Bhat was associated with online propaganda groups operated by Pakistan-based handlers of proscribed terrorist organisations.

Opposing the bail order, the NIA argued that the trial court had erred in examining individual pieces of evidence in isolation and effectively conducting a mini-trial at the bail stage.

The agency submitted that forensic examination of Bhat's mobile phone had revealed call records and incriminating voice notes. It also relied on the testimony of a prosecution witness, who allegedly stated that Bhat had provided his mobile phone to another accused to contact persons across the border in Pakistan.

The NIA further pointed out that charges had subsequently been framed against Bhat by the trial court.

On the other hand, Bhat's counsel argued that the trial court had committed no error in granting bail. It was also submitted that the order framing charges had been challenged separately before the High Court.

The Court noted that the trial court had examined the restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and considered whether the material on record made the accusations against Bhat prima facie true.

The Bench observed that the trial court's order was neither a final conclusion on the evidence nor intended to discharge the accused.

It further held that the subsequent framing of charges against Bhat was not relevant for deciding the NIA's appeal against the bail order.

The Court, however, acknowledged the gravity of the allegations against Bhat and clarified that they would have to be tested during trial.

It also noted that the trial was unlikely to conclude anytime soon, considering the number of witnesses cited by the prosecution and those yet to be examined.

Finding no merit in the NIA's appeal, the High Court dismissed the same.

The Bench clarified that its observations, as well as those made by the trial court while granting bail, would not influence the trial court's decision on the merits of the prosecution's case.