Asadullah Akhtar Withdraws Delhi Bail Appeal After HC Flags His Hyderabad Blasts Conviction And Death Sentence

In brief

The question

1. Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail in the present case, including on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.

The court held

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn and granted the appellant liberty to approach the Court at the appropriate stage if his separate conviction is set aside.

It also directed

The Court therefore did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the bail grounds.

01Facts

The appellant challenged the Trial Court’s order dated 2 April 2026 dismissing his application for regular bail in a case arising from RC No. 06/2012/NIA/DLI.

p. 1

The bail application relied, among other grounds, on prolonged incarceration and delay in trial, the alleged absence of a prima facie case, and the appellant’s contention that the charges did not survive because he had already been tried for offences arising from the same facts

pp. 1–2

The Trial Court had noted that charges were framed under Sections 18, 38(2) and 39(2) of the UAPA and Sections 121 and 122 of the IPC, and rejected the bail application, including the argument based on more than 12 years’ incarceration.

pp. 2–4

The High Court also noted that the appellant had been convicted and sentenced to death in a separate Hyderabad NIA case; the Supreme Court had stayed execution of that sentence, while the conviction remained in force.

pp. 4–5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the appellant was entitled to regular bail in the present case, including on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.

pp. 1–4

ii.2. Whether the pending bail appeal should proceed in light of the appellant’s separate conviction and death sentence, or be withdrawn with liberty to renew the challenge if that conviction is set aside.

pp. 4–5

03Law Applied

The appeal was brought under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

p. 1

The charges in the present case included Sections 18, 38(2) and 39(2) of the UAPA and Sections 121 and 122 of the IPC.

p. 2

It records the Court’s view that, in light of the appellant’s subsisting conviction and death sentence in a separate case, he did not satisfy the conditions for bail in the present appeal.

p. 5

Provisions in the judgment · 21 · Linked ones open on LawLens

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 Section 21

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 16 Section 17 Section 18 Section 19 Section 38 Section 39

Indian Penal Code, 1860 11 provisions

Section 34 Section 109 Section 121 Section 122 Section 201 Section 302 Section 307 Section 316 Section 436 Section 466 Section 474

Explosive Substances Act, 1908 Section 3 Section 5

Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 Section 4

04Reasoning

The High Court noted that the Supreme Court had stayed execution of the death sentence in the separate Hyderabad case, but that the appellant’s conviction continued to stand.

pp. 4–5

In that context, the Court indicated to counsel that the appellant’s case for regular bail in the present appeal would not be made out.

p. 5

The Court did not determine the merits of the appellant’s grounds concerning prolonged incarceration, delay, or the evidentiary basis for the charges; instead, after the Court raised the effect of the subsisting conviction, the appellant sought to withdraw the appeal.

p. 2, 5

05Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn and granted the appellant liberty to approach the Court at the appropriate stage if his separate conviction is set aside.

p. 5

The Court therefore did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the bail grounds.

p. 5

LawLens.Delhi High Court

Original Court PDF