Kashmir Terror-Conspiracy Accused Stays On Bail As Delhi HC Rejects NIA Appeal, With Trial Unlikely To Conclude Soon

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) appealed under Section 21(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, against the Special Court’s order granting bail to Mateen Ahmed Bhat, an accused in a case alleging offences under the IPC and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The prosecution alleged that Bhat acted as an Over Ground Worker (OGW), maintained links with terrorists and handlers, and assisted with logistics and weapons.

The Special Court considered the prosecution material, including Bhat’s alleged disclosure statement and digital evidence, and found insufficient material to establish his participation in the alleged conspiracy at the bail stage.

The NIA contended that the Special Court had improperly assessed the evidence and conducted a mini-trial.

Bhat opposed the appeal, arguing that no grave error in the bail order had been shown.

Section 21(1) of the NIA Act provides the basis for the prosecution’s appeal against the bail order.

Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA restricts the grant of bail where, upon review of the case diary or police report, the court finds the accusation prima facie true; the bail court must assess the available material without reaching a final determination on the evidence.

Relying on Y v. State of Rajasthan, (2022) 9 SCC 269, and the principles summarised in Ashok Dhankad v. State NCT of Delhi, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1690, and reiterated in Sarju Prasad v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2026 SCC OnLine SC 334, the Court held that an appeal against the grant of bail is distinct from an application to cancel bail.

The appellate court may interfere where the bail order is perverse, illegal, arbitrary, inconsistent with law, or based on irrelevant considerations or a failure to consider relevant factors; it must not undertake a threadbare assessment of the evidence.

The Court found that the Special Court had considered the restrictions under Section 43-D(5) and assessed whether the material made the accusations against Bhat prima facie true; its observations were not a final determination of the evidence.

The Court therefore did not treat the subsequent framing of charges as determinative of the appeal.

It also noted a Single Judge’s prima facie observation, in separate proceedings challenging the charge order, that a cited witness’s statement did not appear to refer to Bhat.

Although the allegations were grave, the trial was unlikely to conclude soon given the number of prosecution witnesses remaining to be examined.

Applying the limited appellate standard, the Court found no basis to hold that the bail order was perverse, illegal, or otherwise unjustified.

It dismissed the NIA’s appeal and made no order as to costs.

It clarified that its observations, and those of the Special Court, must not influence the trial on the merits.