Asadullah Akhtar vs Nia

$~9
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision: 27 October, 2026.
th
Uploaded on: 29 October, 2026.
# CNR No. DLHC010197682026
+ CRL.A. 461/2026
ASADULLAH AKHTAR .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Suvarna Swain, Adv. (M: 90078
61884)
versus
NIA .....Respondent
Through: Ms. Shilpa Singh, SPP for NIA with
Mr. Dhananjai Shekhawat, Mr. Archit
Jain and Mr. Ashish Jindal, C/O in
person.
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-Asadullah Akhtar
under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency, 2008, inter alia ,
assailing the order dated 2nd April, 2026 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’ )
passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge-03, New Delhi District, Patiala
House Courts, New Delhi. The case arises out of RC No. 06/2012/NIA/DLI .
Vide the impugned order, the application filed by the Appellant seeking
regular bail has been dismissed
3. The grounds on which bail was sought by the Appellant are as under:
“a. Prolong incarceration without speedy trial;
b. Charges against accused do not survive because
accused is already tried for offences arising out
1 5
CRL.A. 461/2026 Page of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:23:35

of same facts;
c. No prima facie case;
d. Evidence relied upon to show conspiracy for
terrorist act is inadmissible. ”
4. The Trial Court came to the conclusion that the Appellant has been
charged with the offences under Sections 18, 38(2) 39(2) of the Unlawful
Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (hereinafter, ‘UAPA’ ) and Sections 121 and
122 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘IPC’ ). The Trial Court also
held that the charges have already been framed and submissions made by the
Appellant were rejected.
5. On the ground of prolonged incarceration, the Trial Court observed that
the trial has started and as on date, there are various co-accused persons, who
have already been charge-sheeted. The Trial Court also considered various
factors in the delay of the trial. The Trial Court after considering all the factors
observed as under:
“21. Above-mentioned facts revealed that this case had
chequered history. The facts which led to registration of
FIR, demanded extensive investigation with respect to
linking accused persons with various terrorist incidents,
which had taken place in different states in India. There
were many accused persons whose roles had to be
identified based on collection of evidence. Record of this
case is voluminous and lengthy. There were
administrative issues regarding of production of
accused persons from different states. As such, one
cannot shut his eyes from said facts. If that is so, then
delay, as alleged by accused, in trial in present case was
inevitable. Said delay was not without any reason. Said
delay was based on reasons, beyond the control of this
court.
22. Certain accused persons as noted above, had
pleaded guilty for the offences with which they were
2 5
CRL.A. 461/2026 Page of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:23:35

charged. It is a relevant fact which only supports
prosecution for the purpose of decision.
23. Accused herein, was convicted and death sentence is
passed against him in Hyderabad twin blast NIA cases.
It is another relevant fact which helps the cause of
prosecution, for the purpose of decision of present bail
application.
24. Further, if this case was based on large scale
complex criminal conspiracy, then what can one do. If
there were multiple accused persons involved in this
case, then what can one do. If said accused persons were
arrested on different dates, then what can one do. If this
case required extensive investigation than it had to be
done. If accused in this case was involved in other
criminal matters which are serious in nature, attracting
the provisions of UA(P)A then he had to face trial in
those matters. If those matters are in different States,
then accused had to appear in those States in the
concerned courts. The fact that accused was convicted
and death penalty was awarded to him by the concerned
court in Hyderabad twin blast NIA cases, only indicated
that he was arrested in those cases for some reasons.
The judgment of conviction only validated the stand of
prosecution. Based on said facts, it cannot be concluded
that delay in trial in present case had prejudiced the
accused. He is not prejudiced, as he was involved in
other criminal matters, which had to be adjudicated as
per law, for which his presence in the said courts was
required. If in the process, this case got delayed, then it
cannot be said that accused was unnecessarily lodged
in jail, all this while.
25. In the wake of above-mentioned appreciation and
conclusion, it is clear that incarceration of more than 12
years of accused, by itself cannot be made the basis to
grant bail to accused.”
6. In view of the above reasoning, the Trial Court rejected the application
filed by the Appellant seeking regular bail.
3 5
CRL.A. 461/2026 Page of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:23:35

7. Ms. Farasat, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant has made
some submissions in this matter. Ms. Shilpa Singh, ld. SPP appearing for the
NIA has also made her submissions.
8. One noticeable feature in this case is that the Appellant has already
been convicted in SPL. SC. No. 01/2015 arising out of RC No. 01 &
02/NIA/HYD under Sections 120B read with Sections 302/121/302 of the
IPC, Sections 121-A/122/307/316 read with Sections 34/436 read with
Sections 34/201/466 read with Sections 109/474 read with Section 109 of the
IPC, Sections 3(b)/5 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Sections
16/17/18/19 of the UAPA, Section 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public
Property Act, 1984 read with Section 34 IPC. The Appellant has been awarded
death sentence along with fine by the Special Judge, Ranga Reddy District,
Hyderabad, Telangana under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008,
th
on 19 December, 2016.
th
9. The judgment dated 19 December, 2016 was challenged before the
High Court of Telangana in CRLA No.1299/2016 titled ‘Asadullah Akhtar v.
The State of Telangana’ , however, the same was dismissed vide order dated
8th April, 2025.
10. The order dated 8th April, 2025 was challenged before the Supreme
Court and the appeal is pending consideration in Criminal Appeal No(s).
4788-4789/2025 titled ‘Asadullah Akhter @ Haddi @ Tabrez @ Danial @
th
Asad v. State of Telangana’ . The Supreme Court vide order dated 25
September, 2025 had directed as under:
“3. There shall be stay of execution of the death
sentence of the appellant. ”
4 5
CRL.A. 461/2026 Page of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:23:35

11. As can be seen from the above, the execution of the death sentence has
been stayed. However, conviction continues to stand against the Appellant.
12. The Court has put to Ms. Farasat, ld. Senior Counsel that in view of this
conviction and death sentence already passed against the Appellant, the case
of regular bail in the present appeal would not be made out as the Appellant
does not satisfy the conditions for grant of bail.
13. Ms. Farasat, ld. Senior Counsel fairly submits that at this stage she
wishes to withdraw the present appeal with liberty to approach the Court at
the appropriate stage, if the conviction is set aside.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as
prayed for.
PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
DINESH BHATT
JUDGE
OCTOBER 27, 2026/ dk/ck
5 5
CRL.A. 461/2026 Page of
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:DHIRENDER
KUMAR
Signing Date:29.10.2026
16:23:35