Citing prolonged incarceration, the Delhi High Court on Friday granted bail to two men accused in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case for allegedly propagating Islamic State (IS) ideology and radicalising youth to join jihad for the cause of Kashmir.
A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja passed the order, noting that the accused had been in custody for more than four years and four months and that there is no certainty of the trial concluding in any reasonable time. The court added that the continued detention of accused Haris Nisar Langoo and Zamid Adil Bhat may amount to violation of their right under Article 21 of the Constitution.
“The appellant(s) have already undergone prolonged incarceration of around 4 years and 4 months, without any certainty of the trial concluding within a reasonable time. In our considered opinion, and keeping in view the role assigned to the appellant(s), the continued detention of the appellant(s) at this stage would not serve the ends of justice,” the court noted.
The case stems from a 2021 National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe into an alleged conspiracy involving 'hybrid cadres' and overground workers linked to banned terrorist organisations. The prosecution accused Langoo and Bhat of disseminating extremist propaganda, maintaining contact with co-accused and participating in online radicalisation networks.
Their bail application was rejected by the trial court in March 2023. The accused challenged the order before the High Court. In July 2024, they were charged by the trial court for the offence under Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 121A (conspiring to wage war against India) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 18 of the UAPA, which deals with terrorist acts.
After considering the case, the High Court found that the material on record did not justify continued incarceration at the bail stage. It noted that while the allegations involved serious offences, the specific role attributed to the accused was 'limited' and largely related to digital activity.
The Court also observed that the presence of material on their digital devices 'which may even be propagating anti-national activities' may not justify the continuation of their prolonged detention at the trial stage.
Further, it relied on Supreme Court judgments clarifying that mere possession of radical material or ideological sympathy does not automatically amount to terrorist activity without a demonstrable nexus to violence.
“The distinction between ideological alignment and operational participation is constitutionally significant, and must be borne in mind while applying the prima facie standard under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA to the specific facts and material attributed to each of the appellant(s),” the court added.
Follow us
