MANSUR ALI @ MANSUR SEIKH @ MANSUR SK @ MACHUUR ALI vs NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

1

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Appellate Side

CRA (DB)/360/2025

Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur SK @ Machuur Ali
V.
The State of West Bengal

Before: The Hon’ble Justice Arijit Banerjee
&
The Hon’ble Justice Apurba Sinha Ray

For the appellant : Mr. Sabyasachi Banerjee, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Diksha Ghosh, Adv.

For UOI (NIA) : Mr. Arun Kr. Maiti (Mohanty), Spl. PP., NIA.
Mr. Bhaskar Prosad Banerjee, Spl. PP., NIA.
Mr. Debayan Sen, Spl. PP., NIA.
Mr. Debasish Tandon, PP., NIA.
Ms. Deeba Nomani, Adv.


Judgment On : 05.05.2026

Arijit Banerjee, J.:-


1. The appellant renews his prayer for bail which was earlier rejected by
this Court on March 17, 2025.
2. The appellant says that he is in custody for two years eight months. Only
one out of 102 prosecution witnesses has been examined till date and
that too, in part. All the other accused persons are on bail. The petitioner
stands on the same footing or better footing than those persons.
3. The prosecution claims that the appellant along with 6 other persons
were involved in mass scale manufacture of bombs in aid of terrorist
activities. Out of the 7 accused persons, one person died due to a bomb

2

blast in the process of manufacturing bombs. Charge sheet has been filed
under various provisions of IPC, Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 UA(P) Act.
4. Learned Senior Counsel representing National Investigation Agency (NIA)
strongly opposes the prayer for bail. He says that the charges are serious.
The unlawful activities that the accused persons were indulging in is
against the interest of national security. Section 43D (5) of the UA(P) Act
is a bar to grant of bail.
5. It is submitted that for unavoidable reasons on a few occasions the
prosecution had to seek adjournment before the Trial Court. There is no
intentional or deliberate delay in proceeding with the trial. 102 witnesses
will definitely not be examined. The number will be pruned down. The
trial will definitely conclude within 10 months. The bail prayer should not
be allowed. In any event, the prosecution should be permitted to examine
the six protected witnesses before this Court may consider granting bail
to the petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel for NIA relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi),
reported at 2026 INSC 2 .

7. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, we are inclined
to allow this appeal for the following reasons: -
(i) From the charge sheet filed by NIA we find that the charges brought
against all the six accused persons who are facing trial are similar. In
fact, the charges against accused no. 1 (Imdadul Hoque @ Imdarul
Hoque @ Anaj Master) are under sections 120(B), 201 and 304 of IPC,

3

Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 18
of UA(P) Act, 1967. The charges against the appellant are under
identical provisions of law.
(ii) All the other accused persons including Imdadul Hoque, are on bail.
While Imdadul has been granted bail by this Court, the other accused
persons being Sukchand Ali, Mansur Ali, Masadul Hoque, Habibur
Rahaman and Md Tahabul Sk were enlarged on bail by the learned

Trial Court.
(iii) In the charge sheet NIA has described Imdadul as the main
conspirator. It is alleged that he criminally conspired with the co-
accused persons. The present petitioner has been described as a co-
conspirator. Therefore, if Imdadul has been granted bail, there can be
no legitimate reason to deny such privilege to the present petitioner.
(iv) It is not in dispute that there are 102 charge sheet named
witnesses. It is also an admitted position that only one prosecution
witness has been examined till date and that too, in part. Although
learned Advocate for NIA wants us to believe that the trial will conclude
within ten months, we are unable to attach much credence to such
submission. Going by the fact that over the last eight months only one
prosecution witness has been examined in part, it is highly improbable
that even by pruning down the number of witnesses from 102, the
prosecution will be able to conclude the trial within ten months or even
one year.
(v) We see that charge was framed on July 14, 2025. Thereafter, on
August 11, 2025, September 3, 2025 and September 9, 2025, the

4

matter had to be adjourned either because the presiding officer was
busy with other work or he was absent or the NIA sought adjournment.
September 11, 2025, was fixed for recording evidence. On the date,
CSW 1 was absent and hence the trial was adjourned. On December 5,
2025, again CSW 1, failed to attend Court and the trial was adjourned.
For the same reason, on January 19, 2026, the trial was adjourned.
The examination of CSW 1 started on February 12, 2026, and he was
examined in part. On March 5, 2026, again the trial was adjourned as
CSW 1 was unable to attend Court. The trial has now been fixed on
May 12, 2026.
Therefore, at the pace and in the manner the trial is proceeding, it is
anybody’s guess as to when the trial will conclude. The petitioner is in
custody already for 2 years 8 months. He cannot be kept in
incarceration indefinitely without convicting him when nobody can tell
when the trial will end.
(vi) In this connection we may refer to the decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.A Najeeb reported at (2021) 3
SCC 713 . It was held that where the trial is not likely to conclude
within a reasonable period, constitutional courts retain the jurisdiction
to grant bail notwithstanding statutory restraints. That decision
operates as a protection against unwarranted and unconscionable
detention.
(vii) It is also well established that a fundamental right of a citizen
under Article 21 of the Constitution overrides any statutory restriction

5

on grant of bail whether under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act or under
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985 or the like.
8. We have considered the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), Supra. Learned
Counsel for NIA relied on the decision in support of his submission that the
plea of parity is misconceived and unsustainable. Bail jurisprudence
mandates an assessment of individual role and parity cannot be claimed
mechanically. We agree with the proposition. However, in the present case,
we have decided to grant bail not on the ground of parity only.
9. We are also not impressed by NIA’s submission that the matter of
granting bail to the petitioner should be considered only after examination of
the 6 protected witnesses of the prosecution is complete. NIA is resourceful
enough to protect its ‘protected witnesses’ and ensure that their identity is
not disclosed.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this application.
11. The petitioners namely Mansur Ali @ Mansur Seikh @ Mansur SK @
Manchuur Ali may find bail of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.
25,000/- each and out of which one must be local, subject to the
satisfaction of learned Chief Judge, City Sessions Court, Calcutta and also
on following terms and conditions: -
i. That the petitioner shall remain within the jurisdiction of New
Town PS, Kolkata excepting for the purpose of attending Court.
ii. He shall also intimate the learned Trial Court and the
designated officer his address under New Town P.S. Kolkata
where he will be residing at present.

6

iii. He shall attend the Trial Court on each and every date of
hearing.
iv. He shall be allowed to use two mobile numbers and he shall
inform the learned Trial Court and the designated Officer of NIA
the said two numbers.
v. The NIA shall be entitled to monitor his calls.
vi. The NIA shall be entitled to keep a vigil on the petitioner.
vii. No person other than close relatives, doctors, learned advocates
shall be allowed to meet the petitioner.
viii. The petitioner shall meet the IC, New Town P.S. once a week.
ix. The petitioner shall not intimidate, influence any witness
including protected witnesses either directly or indirectly
through his agents.
x. In default of any of the conditions, the bail granted to him shall
stand cancelled without any reference to this Court.
12. We clarify that the observations made by us in this judgment are only
for the purpose of disposing of the appeal and the same shall have no
bearing on the trial.

13. The appeal being CRA (DB)/360/2025 is accordingly disposed of.

14. Urgent photostat certified copies of this judgment, if applied for, be
supplied to the parties on compliance of all necessary formalities.

I agree.

( Apurba Sinha Ray, J. ) ( Arijit Banerjee, J. )