SC seeks Delhi Police response on bail pleas of alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives

Account subscription benefits alongside Premium Stories, Editorials, Opinions and more. Unlock these with Subscription

The View From India Looking at World Affairs from the Indian perspective.

First Day First Show News and reviews from the world of cinema and streaming.

Today's Cache Your download of the top 5 technology stories of the day.

Data Point Decoding the headlines with facts, figures, and numbers

Health Matters Ramya Kannan writes to you on getting to good health, and staying there

The Hindu On Books Books of the week, reviews, excerpts, new titles and features.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (June 17, 2026) asked the Delhi Police to respond to bail pleas filed by two men accused of operating the Rajasthan module of the banned outfit Indian Mujahideen. The accused, who have been in custody for 12 years, are challenging a Delhi High Court order denying them bail.

The Supreme Court’s January 5 judgment denying bail to activists Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam, which the High Court had relied on while rejecting the bail pleas of these two men, has since been referred to a larger Bench for consideration, the Bench noted.

This is the latest in a series of bail hearings at the Supreme Court that spotlight the legal debate between national security concerns and Constitutional safeguards for individual liberty, especially in cases under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The accused’s counsel informed a Bench of Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi that the two men had been in custody since March 2014, when they were arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell and charged under various provisions of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik, appearing for the Delhi Police, submitted that the High Court’s order refusing bail was a “reasoned” one and was consistent with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in its January 5 judgment in the Delhi riots conspiracy case involving Mr. Khalid and Mr. Imam. The ruling had held that the stringent restrictions on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA would prevail over considerations such as prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.

The Bench, however, pointed out that the January 5 judgment had subsequently been referred to a larger Bench for consideration.

“What reasoned order? The judgment relied upon has since been referred to a larger Bench... You will have to file a counter-affidavit,” Justice Bagchi said in his oral remarks.

On May 22, while hearing the bail pleas of Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid