The Supreme Court has granted bail to two accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing that their continued incarceration for nearly 12 years with no likelihood of an early conclusion of the trial amounted to a violation of their fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta directed the release of Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar on bail in connection with FIR No. 54 of 2011 registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell, subject to conditions to be imposed by the trial court and provided they are not required in any other case.

The petitioners had challenged a common judgment of the Delhi High Court dated April 24, 2026, which upheld the trial court's rejection of their bail applications under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The Court noted that the petitioners had remained in custody since 2014 and continued to be incarcerated only because of the Delhi case, having already secured bail or suspension of sentence in two related Rajasthan cases arising out of similar allegations.

Examining the status of the Delhi trial through the e-Courts portal, the bench found that the proceedings had made negligible progress.

It recorded that the prosecution had cited 197 witnesses, while only 68 witnesses had been examined so far. More significantly, from January 2025 till date, only two witnesses had been examined, one of them only partly.

"The progress of the trial has been extremely slow, and there appears to be no prospect of the trial being concluded in the near future," the Court observed.

The bench also noted that the case involved 25 accused.

Background

The prosecution case stems from the arrest of Pakistani national Mohd. Qateel Siddiqui in November 2011, who allegedly disclosed the existence of a Rajasthan module of the Indian Mujahideen.

Based on these disclosures, explosives and alleged IED-making materials were allegedly recovered from premises linked to Ansari in Jodhpur and Azhar in Jaipur, leading to two separate Rajasthan FIRs in addition to the Delhi case.

The Court observed that the allegations in the three FIRs substantially overlapped.

In one Rajasthan case (FIR No. 03 of 2014), both petitioners were convicted in 2021, but the Rajasthan High Court subsequently suspended their sentences. In the other Rajasthan case (FIR No. 113 of 2014), both had already been granted bail.

The Supreme Court also noted that co-accused Mohd. Maroof, facing trial in the Delhi case, had already been enlarged on bail.

Taking these factors together, the bench held that the prolonged incarceration of the petitioners could not be justified.

"Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances... coupled with the slow progress of trial, we feel that the continued incarceration of the petitioners in this case is grossly violative of the right to liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India," the Court held.

Cause Title: MOHD. SAQUIB ANSARI VERSUS STATE NCT OF DELHI (with connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 730

Click here to download order

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Trideep Pais, Sr. Adv. Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Jain, Adv. Ms. Saloni Ambasta, Adv. Mr. Fahad M. Khan, Adv. Mr. Nilesh Jain, Adv. Mr. Paras Nath Singh, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Anil Kaushik, A.S.G. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR Mr. Pranjal Singh, Adv. Ms. Alka Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Kartikay Asthana, Adv.