SC Grants Bail To Two Alleged Indian Mujahideen Operatives After 12 Years, Cites Slow Trial

The Supreme Court has granted bail to alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar after nearly 12 years in custody, saying their prolonged detention without a likely end to the trial violated their right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the trial in the Delhi terror case had moved at an extremely slow pace and there was no possibility of it being completed soon. In its July 27 order, the bench observed, “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 further said, “ 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 bail pleas were related to Delhi Police Special Cell FIR No. 54/2011, registered over alleged Indian Mujahideen activities in and around Delhi. Ansari and Azhar were arrested in 2014 and had remained in custody since then.

The Supreme Court noted that the case involved 25 accused and 197 prosecution witnesses, but only 68 witnesses had been examined so far, showing the slow pace of proceedings. The bench also pointed out that one co accused had already been granted bail.

The case began after alleged Indian Mujahideen member Mohd Quateel Siddiqui was arrested in November 2011. Police claimed that his disclosures led to the investigation of a Rajasthan module of the outfit and resulted in arrests, along with the recovery of explosives and ammunition.

The court also noted that the accused were involved in three FIRs with overlapping allegations. In one Rajasthan case, they were convicted in March 2021, but their sentences were later suspended by the high court. They had also received bail in another Rajasthan case.

The Supreme Court directed that they be released on bail under conditions set by the trial court, provided they are not required in any other case. It said they must cooperate with the trial and warned that if they delay proceedings, fail to cooperate, or misuse their liberty, the prosecution can approach the court for action.

The bench clarified, “ The observations made by us are confined to the adjudication of these petitions seeking bail and shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case.”