Supreme Court Seeks Delhi Police Reply on Bail for Two Alleged Indian Mujahideen Operatives

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026) sought a response from the Delhi Police regarding the bail applications of two men alleged to be operatives of the banned Indian Mujahideen (IM) group, who have been incarcerated for approximately 12 years in connection with terror-related cases.

A bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi issued a notice to the Delhi Police on the pleas filed by Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar. The two had approached the apex court challenging the Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant them bail.

During the hearing, the bench observed that the principles established by the court in January 2026 would govern the present case. In that January order, the Supreme Court had granted bail to several accused in the Delhi riots cases while denying bail to activist Umar Khalid and student leader Sharjeel Imam for a period of one year. The bench indicated that the reasoning from that order would apply here.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Kaushik, representing the Delhi Police, contended that the High Court’s decision to deny bail was a reasoned order. He stated that the High Court had correctly applied the principles laid down in the Gulfisha Fatima judgement delivered by the Delhi High Court on January 5, 2026.

The bench, however, appeared skeptical. “What reasoned order? The judgement referred to is pending for reference,” the bench remarked. It added that the Supreme Court’s 2021 ruling in the K.A. Najeeb case would “apply with all force here, subject to the way it has been interpreted in the Gulfisha Fathima case.” The court directed the Delhi Police to file a counter affidavit explaining their position.

The K.A. Najeeb judgment, delivered by the Supreme Court in 2021, is a significant precedent. It recognised that an inordinately long delay in trial could serve as a valid ground for granting bail even in cases under stringent laws like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The ruling effectively stated that the statutory restrictions on bail imposed by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA could be overridden when there was a prolonged period of incarceration without trial, as this would infringe upon the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar were arrested in 2014 based on a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police. The investigation had begun when Mohd Quateel Siddiqui, also an alleged IM member, was apprehended on November 21, 2011, near the Anand Vihar inter-state bus terminal in Delhi. During his interrogation, Siddiqui allegedly disclosed the names of other individuals believed to be associated with the Indian Mujahideen, which is designated as a banned terrorist organisation under Indian law.

The Indian Mujahideen has been linked to several terrorist attacks in the past, including the German Bakery blast in Pune (2010), the Chinnaswamy Stadium blast in Bengaluru (2010), and the Jama Masjid attacks in Delhi (2010). Based on the information provided by Siddiqui and further intelligence, the Special Cell conducted multiple arrests and claimed to have recovered a substantial cache of explosives, arms, and ammunition.

The Delhi High Court, while rejecting the bail applications of Ansari and Azhar on April 24, 2026, had observed that despite their lengthy incarceration, their release would pose a significant threat to national security and public safety. The High Court held that the gravity of the allegations and the potential danger outweighed the consideration of the delay in trial.

The Supreme Court’s decision to seek a counter affidavit from the Delhi Police suggests that the court will examine whether the principles of the Najeeb case, as interpreted in the Gulfisha Fatima judgement, have been correctly applied. The Gulfisha Fatima judgement itself is under reference, indicating that its legal interpretation may be subject to further judicial scrutiny. The top court’s approach in this case will be closely watched, as it could clarify the balance between national security concerns and an accused person’s right to bail in cases involving prolonged pre-trial detention under the UAPA.

At the time of writing, the court has not fixed a specific date for the next hearing, but the Delhi Police is expected to submit its reply within the stipulated period.