Prolonged Incarceration Does Not Override Section 43D(5) UAPA Bar Where Prima Facie Evidence Discloses Active Terrorist Role

The Appellants, alleged members of the "Rajasthan Module" of the banned terrorist outfit Indian Mujahideen, were arrested on March 23, 2014, following disclosures by Zia-Ur-Rehman @ Waqas

Substantial quantities of explosives, detonators, IED materials, and "jihadi" electronic content were recovered from their possession

They were charge-sheeted in Delhi FIR No. 54/2011 for conspiracy to commit terrorist acts under Sections 18, 18A, 19, and 20 of the UAPA

Notably, the Appellants were already convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment by a Jaipur Trial Court in 2021 for similar offences involving the same recovery of explosives

Though the High Court of Rajasthan suspended the sentence of Saquib Ansari and granted bail to both in a Jodhpur case based on long incarceration (approx. 12 years), the Delhi Trial Court rejected their bail applications on January 10 and 29, 2025

1. Whether a prolonged period of incarceration (11-12 years) automatically entitles an accused to bail under UAPA, notwithstanding the statutory restrictions of Section 43D(5)

2. Whether the Appellants are entitled to bail on the ground of parity with co-accused Mohd. Maroof, who was granted bail by the High Court

3. Whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the Appellants are prima facie true under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA

The court primarily applied Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, which mandates that bail must be refused if the court finds the accusations to be prima facie true

It relied on NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, establishing the "broad probabilities" test for prima facie evidence

Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, which clarified that under UAPA, "jail is the rule and bail is the exception"

The court further integrated the principles from Gulfisha Fatima v. State (NCT of Delhi) [2026], holding that while Article 21 protects against unconscionable detention, delay is not a "trump card" and must be balanced against the gravity of the offence and the role of the accused

The court reasoned that the Appellants do not satisfy the twin conditions of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. While the Appellants argued parity with Mohd. Maroof, the court distinguished their roles based on the nature of recoveries; unlike Maroof, from whom only digital devices were seized, the Appellants were found with live explosives and IED components

The court emphasized that the Jaipur Trial Court’s 2021 judgment of conviction—which found the Appellants guilty of participating in a terrorist module, forging IDs, and possessing explosives—serves as concrete material to establish that the accusations are prima facie true

Regarding the 12-year incarceration, the court applied the "calibrated approach" from Gulfisha Fatima, concluding that the Appellants' central roles in a banned outfit and their specialized training (e.g., making poisons/bombs) render them a continuing threat to national security, making their detention constitutionally justifiable despite the delay

The court specifically ruled that prolonged incarceration cannot be a "mathematical formula" for release in cases involving threats to national sovereignty where the accused played a central, organizational role in a terrorist module

The court dismissed the appeals and upheld the Trial Court’s orders denying bail