UAPA Bail & Prolonged Incarceration: Supreme Court Issues Notice To Delhi Police
On June 18, 2026, a Supreme Court bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi issued notice to the Delhi Police, seeking its response to the bail pleas of Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar — two men charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, who have spent more than 12 years in custody.
The bench has directed Delhi Police to file a counter-affidavit by July 20, 2026, according to LiveLaw. The two accused are now in their thirteenth year of incarceration, having been arrested on March 23, 2014.
Background: How We Got Here
The case originates from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell following the arrest of alleged Indian Mujahideen operative Mohd. Quateel Siddiqui on November 21, 2011, near the Anand Vihar inter-state bus terminal in Delhi.
Subsequent investigation led to Ansari and Azhar after Pakistani national Zia-ur-Rehman alias Waqas allegedly disclosed their names during interrogation, as reported by Lawbeat. Both were arrested on March 23, 2014.
- The prosecution alleges that Ansari and Azhar formed the Rajasthan module of the banned Indian Mujahideen and were involved in preparations for terrorist attacks, including alleged possession of explosive materials, arms, and jihadi content.
- Both were charged under Sections 18, 18A, 19, and 20 of the UAPA for alleged membership of and association with the banned organisation, per LiveLaw. The Delhi Sessions Case number is 8808/2016.
- In a connected Jaipur case, both accused were convicted in 2021 under IPC Section 121 (waging war against the Government of India) and multiple UAPA counts. Their sentences were subsequently suspended by the Rajasthan High Court, as reported by Tribune India.
Their bail applications were rejected by the trial court — Ansari’s on January 10, 2025, and Azhar’s on January 29, 2025. Both then appealed to the Delhi High Court under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
A Delhi High Court Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain dismissed those appeals — registered as CRL.A. 95/2025 and CRL.A. 252/2025 — on April 24, 2026, according to Bar & Bench. The High Court held that “the test under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA for not releasing the Appellants stands satisfied.”
Ansari and Azhar have now approached the Supreme Court. Ansari’s petition is registered as SLP (Crl) 11369/2026 — Mohd. Saquib Ansari v. State.
The Ruling — Key Findings
Appearing before the Supreme Court bench on June 18, 2026, counsel for the accused underscored the scale of the detention, submitting: “There is incarceration for more than 12 years.”
The bench indicated that the landmark Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb judgment — which established that prolonged incarceration can override the UAPA’s stringent bail bar — would be squarely applicable.
The bench observed: “The K A Najeeb case will apply with all force here, subject to the way it has been interpreted in the Gulfisha Fathima case.”
The Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, appearing for Delhi Police, sought to rely on the Gulfisha Fatima judgment — a January 5, 2026 ruling that granted bail to five Delhi riots accused but denied it to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.
The bench was sharply skeptical of that reliance. It remarked: “What reasoned order? Judgement referred to is pending for reference. What are you saying?”
This was a pointed reference to the fact that the Gulfisha Fatima judgment has since been referred to a larger Supreme Court bench, as confirmed by Bar & Bench and Tribune India.
A critical procedural concern weighs heavily in favour of the accused: the prosecution has listed approximately 600 witnesses in the Delhi trial, of whom only 68 have so far been examined. Trial conclusion remains a distant prospect, according to LiveLaw.
Section 43D(5) of the UAPA ordinarily prohibits bail where the court is satisfied that the case against an accused is prima facie true. The K.A. Najeeb ruling, however, held that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail when prolonged incarceration amounts to a violation of the right to liberty under Article 21, even in UAPA cases.
Reactions & What’s Next
Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik represented Delhi Police before the bench and was directed to file a counter-affidavit, per Bar & Bench and Outlook India.
The Supreme Court has set July 20, 2026, as the deadline for Delhi Police to file its response. The matter will thereafter be listed for further hearing. The case remains sub judice.
The outcome is likely to be watched closely by constitutional lawyers and civil liberties groups, given its potential to sharpen the law on bail in long-pending UAPA trials — particularly in the shadow of the still-unsettled Gulfisha Fatima reference.
More legal news at The Courtroom.
Who are Mohd. Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar?
Ansari and Azhar are two accused charged under Sections 18, 18A, 19, and 20 of the UAPA for alleged membership of the banned Indian Mujahideen. They were arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell on March 23, 2014, and have remained in custody for over 12 years. Both were also convicted in a connected Jaipur case in 2021 under IPC Section 121 and multiple UAPA counts, though their sentences were suspended by the Rajasthan High Court.
Why did the Delhi High Court deny bail to the two accused?
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Madhu Jain dismissed their bail appeals on April 24, 2026, holding that “the test under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA for not releasing the Appellants stands satisfied.” Section 43D(5) of the UAPA places a stringent bar on bail where the court is satisfied that the case against the accused is prima facie true.
What is the significance of the K.A. Najeeb judgment in this case?
The Supreme Court’s K.A. Najeeb ruling held that constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail in UAPA cases when prolonged incarceration violates the accused’s right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. The bench hearing Ansari and Azhar’s pleas stated the judgment “will apply with all force here,” making it a central precedent for their bail claims, per Bar & Bench.
What is the current status of the case in the Supreme Court?
As of June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi has issued notice to Delhi Police in SLP (Crl) 11369/2026 and directed it to file a counter-affidavit by July 20, 2026. The matter is sub judice and will be heard again after Delhi Police files its response.
Disclaimer
Disclaimer: This article is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Laws may change or vary by case — consult a qualified lawyer before acting. The Courtroom is not liable for any reliance on this content.
