Basit Kalam Siddique vs National Investigation Agency

$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
nd
Date of Decision: 2 November, 2026
th
Uploaded on: 4 November, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010129852025
+ CRL.A. 297/2025
BASIT KALAM SIDDIQUE .....Appellant
Through: Mr. Kartik Venu, Mr. Agrim Tandon,
Mr.R. Jude Rohit, Mr. Arjan Chonker,
Ms. Alisha Sharda, Advs.
versus

NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Jatin, Advocate for Mr. Rahul
Tyagi, SPP for NIA with, Ms. Priya
Rai, Charu Sharma, Ms. Shristi
Kumari, Mr. Amit Rohila, Advocates
along with Insp. Vishnu Sharma, CIO.
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUSTICE DINESH BHATT
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant under Section 21(4)
th
of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 assailing the order dated 17
February, 2025 passed by the ld. Additional Session Judge-03, New Delhi
District, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi in SC No. 01/2022 titled NIA v
Umar Nisar & Ors. Vide the impugned order, the application filed by the
Appellant seeking regular bail was dismissed by the Trial Court. The appeal
arises out of RC No. 14/2021/NIA/ DLI .
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing
Date:04.11.2026 16:44
CRL.A. 297/2025 Page 1 of 4

3. The case of the Appellant is that there is no material on record which
would point to the guilt of the Appellant, who is A-12 before the Trial Court.
Mr. Kartik Venu, ld. Counsel for the Appellant has vehemently urged that the
Appellant deserves bail in order to enable him to prepare for trial before the
Trial Court.
4. It is also further submitted that four of the co-accused including the
main accused i.e., A-1 (Umar Nisar), A-2 (Rameez Ahmed Lone), A-3
(Tanveer Ahmad Bhat) and A-5 (Afshan Parvaiz Jarabi) had pleaded guilty
th
before the Trial Court which is recorded in order dated 17 September, 2026.
Three of the said accused persons were sentenced to six years rigorous
imprisonment along with other sentences to run concurrently. One of the co-
accused was sentenced to five years of imprisonment.
5. In comparison, the Appellant has already served more than four years
in incarceration. Accordingly, it is his case that the Appellant deserves to be
released.
6. Ld. Counsel appearing for the NIA has relied upon the decision of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRL. A. 871/2023 titled ‘Md.
Heydaitullah v. National Investigation Agency’ . Mohd. Heydaitullah is A-
13 in the same FIR and his appeal challenging the rejection of bail was
th
dismissed on 10 January 2025. The said decision was challenged before the
Supreme Court in SLP(Crl) No. 008799/2025 titled ‘Md. Heydaitullah v.
National Investigation Agency’ which was finally disposed of vide order
dated 11th August, 2026 in the following terms:-
“1. The instant petition has been filed for grant of
regular bail in RC-14/2021/NIA/DLI registered at
Police Station NIA under Sections 124A, 153A, 153B of
the IPC and Sections 17, 18, 38, 39 and 40 of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing
Date:04.11.2026 16:44
CRL.A. 297/2025 Page 2 of 4

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, that there
were a total of 12 accused persons, out of whom 4 as
absconding. It is stated that after completing the
investigation, a chargesheet was filed against the
remaining 8 accused persons, including the petitioner.
2. When this matter came up for hearing, this Court
expanded the scope of this petition and passed various
orders from time to time. Pursuant thereto, the Union of
India has now established Special Courts for the
exclusive trial of cases under NIA. The petitioner's case
has also been transferred to one of such Special Courts
where charges have also been framed.
3. In such circumstances, while we are not inclined to
enlarge the petition on bail at this stage, we dispose of
this petition with a direction to the learned Special
Court to examine the vital and protracted witnesses
within a period of six months and ensure that the entire
trial is concluded within a period of one year. For this
purpose, the case shall be taken up on a day-to-day
basis, if so required.”

7. The Court has heard the matter. Clearly, the role of A-12 and A-13 as
captured in the charge-sheet cannot be different. Since this Court has already
taken a view in respect of A-13, the Court would not be inclined to grant bail
at this stage. However, the issue remains as to the other co-accused having
been awarded sentences of five years and six years upon pleading guilty. This
could be a ground for the Appellant to approach the Trial Court once again by
way of a fresh application seeking bail. Ld. Counsel for the Appellant submits
that his client may be permitted to approach the trial court.
8. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn but with liberty to
the Appellant to approach the Trial Court for bail once again.
9. Needless to add, any observation in the impugned order would not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing
Date:04.11.2026 16:44
CRL.A. 297/2025 Page 3 of 4

affect fresh consideration of the bail application, if any, filed by the Appellant.
10. All rights and contentions are left upon. It is made clear that this Court
has not expressed any opinion on merits.


PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE


DINESH BHATT
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 2, 2026/MR/ck
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:RAHUL
Signing
Date:04.11.2026 16:44
CRL.A. 297/2025 Page 4 of 4