2011 Mumbai Blasts Case: Accused Gets Bail After Nearly 15 Years In Custody

A special court in Mumbai has granted bail to Zainul Shaikh, an accused in the 2011 Mumbai serial blasts case, citing his nearly 15 years of incarceration as an undertrial and the principle of parity with co-accused who have already secured bail.

Special MCOCA judge Satyanarayan R Navander made it clear that the court was aware of the seriousness of the allegations but was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the prosecution's case while considering the bail plea.

Shaikh has been in judicial custody since 2012. His lawyer, Wahab Khan, argued that his prolonged incarceration and the release of two co-accused on similar grounds justified bail. Naquee Ahmed Wasi Ahmed Shaikh and Haroon Rashid Abdul Hameed Naik were granted bail on April 10 this year, with the court taking into account the delayed trial and the length of their imprisonment.

The case relates to the coordinated July 13, 2011 Mumbai blasts, when explosions struck three locations during the evening rush hour — outside Prasad Chambers near Opera House, Zaveri Bazaar and Dadar. The attacks killed 27 people and injured more than 130.

The prosecution opposed the bail plea, maintaining that there was substantial material against Shaikh, including alleged confessional statements and CCTV footage. Special public prosecutor Ajay Misar also pointed to the progress of the trial, saying 227 witnesses had already been examined and that an early conclusion was now possible.

The court acknowledged the progress but said it could not by itself erase the fact that Shaikh had spent nearly 15 years behind bars without the trial being concluded.

Judge Navander observed that the constitutional concern surrounding prolonged deprivation of personal liberty remained relevant. The court also noted that the earlier bail granted to co-accused was based not merely on the stage of evidence but on the extraordinary length of their incarceration.

The court held that the examination of 24 additional witnesses since the earlier bail order did not constitute enough of a distinguishing circumstance to deny Shaikh the benefit of parity.

Shaikh has been directed to execute a Rs 1 lakh bond with one or more solvent local sureties of the same amount. He has also been barred from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses and cannot leave the court's jurisdiction without prior permission.