On Monday, the Delhi High Court ordered the release of Mohammad Saqib, who has been held as an undertrial for almost eight years on charges of waging war against the Indian government. The bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, granted bail in a case that remains far from trial completion.
Background of the case
Mohammad Saqib was arrested in 2018 and subsequently charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Explosive Substances Act and sections of the Indian Penal Code. The National Investigation Agency (NIA) alleges that Saqib was a member of the pro‑IS outfit Harkat‑ul‑Harb‑E‑Islam, that he facilitated meetings between militants of Jaish‑e‑Mohammed for training purposes, and that he procured arms intended for use against the state.
Following his arrest, Saqib’s bail application was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge at Patiala House Courts, prompting him to seek relief from the High Court. In his plea before the bench, Saqib contended that he was not involved in the core module of the alleged terror plot and that his role, if any, was peripheral.
The NIA opposed the bail request, arguing that a delay in the trial’s conclusion should not be a basis for release. The agency also highlighted that material recovered from Saqib’s mobile phone was serious, though it did not elaborate on its specific content.
Court’s reasoning and bail conditions
In its judgment dated September 14, the Delhi High Court observed that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future. Of the 120 prosecution witnesses listed, statements from only 40 had been recorded, indicating a substantial gap in the evidentiary record. The court noted that Saqib had already spent roughly eight years in detention, a period the judges deemed “unreasonably long” for an undertrial.
Justice Chawla and Justice Dudeja stated that the court did not find the witness statements “grave enough” to justify continued incarceration. While acknowledging the seriousness of the material allegedly retrieved from Saqib’s phone, the bench concluded that it did not, at present, warrant his continued detention.
Consequently, the bench set aside the sessions court’s order and granted bail, emphasizing that Saqib had made a “case for being released on bail” after considering the witness statements, the allegations, and the length of his incarceration.
The bail order imposed several conditions aimed at mitigating any perceived risk. Saqib is barred from traveling outside his native district of Hapur, except for trips to Delhi required for court appearances or to report to the NIA. He must report to the NIA’s Lucknow office once every fortnight. His passport has been surrendered to the trial court, and he is permitted to use only one mobile phone or a landline until the trial concludes. Any change of residence or contact details must be communicated to both the NIA and the trial court at least seven days in advance. Additionally, Saqib is prohibited from sharing or circulating any “anti‑national material” on social media or through other channels.
Legal representation and next steps
Advocate Sarim Naved appeared on behalf of Saqib, while the NIA was represented by a team of counsel including Rahul Tyagi, Priya Rai, Avinash Kumar Singh, Priyansh Raj Singh and Amit Rohila. The court’s decision does not signal an end to the proceedings; the trial will continue, and Saqib remains subject to the conditions outlined in the bail order.
Observers note that the judgment underscores a growing judicial focus on the rights of undertrials who face protracted pre‑trial detention, especially in cases involving stringent anti‑terror statutes such as the UAPA. The court’s emphasis on the incomplete witness record and the length of incarceration may influence future bail applications in similar cases.
For now, Saqib will be released from custody but will remain under close monitoring by the NIA and the trial court, with his movements and communications tightly regulated until the final verdict is delivered.
Be First to Comment