The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought the Delhi Police's response to bail pleas filed by two alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives who have spent more than 12 years in jail in connection with a terror conspiracy case linked to an alleged illegal arms and ammunition factory in Delhi.

A Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice on the pleas filed by Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar.

Notably, the Court also indicated that the principles laid down by it in Gulfisha Fatima v. State - the Supreme Court’s January 2026 ruling in which bail was granted to five accused in the Delhi riots case but denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam - would govern the present matter.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, appearing for the Delhi Police, said that the order of the High Court denying bail was a reasoned one, and had applied the principles laid down in the Gulfisha Fatima judgement.

The Court, however, expressed doubts over this argument.

"What reasoned order? Judgement referred to is pending for reference. What are you saying? Najeeb (KA Najeeb judgement, in which delays in trial was held to be a valid ground to grant bail in UAPA cases) will apply with all force here, subject to the way it has been interpreted in Gulfisha (Umar Khalid’s case). You will have to file a counter," the Court remarked.

The Bench’s oral remarks assume significance because the legal principles governing bail in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) are presently under consideration by a larger Bench of the Supreme Court.

Last month, while granting interim bail to Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale referred certain questions relating to UAPA bail jurisprudence for consideration by a larger Bench.

The reference arose after a separate Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, expressed reservations about the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, particularly the decision to deny Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam bail.

The Justice Nagarathna Bench opined the Umar Khalid bail denial order appeared to be in conflict with the principles laid down in the KA Najeeb case, in which it was held that prolonged delays in trial was a ground to grant bail, regardless of the stringent tests for bail in UAPA cases.

The Gulfisha Fatima judgment, on the other hand, had taken a more nuanced view of delays in trial. In that judgment, the Court held that delay cannot by itself become a ground for bail in UAPA cases. Courts must also consider factors such as the nature of allegations, the strength of the prosecution's case and the stage of the trial, it was held.

Last month, the Court noted that the controversy went beyond the correctness of any one judgment and raised a broader constitutional question, that is: How Article 21’s guarantee of personal liberty should be applied in cases where Parliament has imposed stringent restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. This question is now pending before a larger Bench.

It was against this backdrop that the Court today observed that KA Najeeb would apply “with all force” to the present case, subject to the manner in which it was interpreted in Gulfisha Fatima.

The present case arises from a First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell following the arrest of alleged Indian Mujahideen member Mohd Quateel Siddiqui in November 2011.

According to the prosecution, the investigation uncovered a wider conspiracy involving members of the banned outfit and led to the arrest of several individuals across multiple States.

Ansari and Azhar were arrested in March 2014 after the arrest of Pakistani national Zia-ur-Rehman alias Waqas, who allegedly disclosed their names during interrogation. The prosecution claims the two men were part of the Rajasthan module of Indian Mujahideen and were involved in preparations for terrorist attacks.

In April this year, the Delhi High Court refused to grant them bail despite their prolonged incarceration.

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain held that the allegations against the accused, the material allegedly recovered from them, and their conviction in a connected Rajasthan case were sufficient to attract the bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The High Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gulfisha Fatima to hold that prolonged incarceration, by itself, could not justify bail in the facts of the case.

Ansari and Azhar then approached the Supreme Court for relief.