LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Mohammad Saqib @ Saqib Iftekar vs. National Investigation Agency

Criminal Appeal · CNR No. DLHC010456852024Decided 14 Sept 2026New Delhi Bench
CRL.A. 676/2024CNR: DLHC010456852024
Justice Navin Chawla · Justice Ravinder Dudeja

Background

The appellant was arrested on 26 December 2018 and has been in jail for almost 8 years in connection with an NIA case alleging a terror conspiracy under the UAPA and IPC, involving links between an ISIS-linked group and the Jaish-e-Mohammad, arms procurement, and other terror-related activities. He was accused mainly of visiting Kashmir to try to arrange a meeting with local militants and of introducing another accused to a person allegedly involved in procuring arms. His bail application had earlier been rejected by the trial court, and he appealed to the High Court under the special appeal provision of the NIA Act.

Decision Breakdown

The Court noted that out of 120 prosecution witnesses, only 40 had been examined (with the prosecution planning to drop 39 more), meaning the trial was unlikely to conclude soon despite the appellant's roughly 8 years in custody. Having reviewed the testimony of the three key witnesses against him, all of whom had by then been examined at trial, the Bench found nothing grave enough in their statements to justify his continued detention, and held that the long incarceration period, balanced against the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21, outweighed the restrictive bail conditions under the UAPA. The Court granted bail, setting aside the trial court's rejection, subject to a lengthy list of strict conditions including sureties, passport surrender, travel restrictions, a fortnightly reporting requirement to the NIA, and bans on contacting witnesses or making public statements about the case.

Lesson Learnt

Even under the UAPA's strict bail regime for terrorism cases, prolonged pre-trial incarceration (here, about 8 years with the trial nowhere near completion) can by itself justify bail once the actual evidence against the accused, on a prima facie look, doesn't appear grave enough to warrant further detention: the constitutional right to liberty and a speedy trial can outweigh statutory bail restrictions in such circumstances.

Search on eCourtsView Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case