Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Alleged Indian Mujahideen Operative in Terror Case

In a significant development, the High Court of Delhi has granted bail to Abdul Subhan Qureshi, co-founder of the banned terror organization Indian Mujahideen, in a terror case. The decision, handed down by a bench comprising Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Manoj Jain, comes after Qureshi’s prolonged incarceration of around five years.

The court, taking into account the period of Qureshi’s detention, directed that the terms and conditions of the bail would be determined by the trial court. However, the bench emphasized that any violation of the conditions or attempts to obstruct justice would warrant the prosecution seeking cancellation of bail.

The bail was granted in response to an appeal by Qureshi challenging a trial court’s order from December 2023, which had dismissed his plea seeking bail under the Unlawful Activities Act. Qureshi sought bail under Section 436-A of the CrPC, citing his right as an under-trial prisoner to seek bail after serving more than half of the maximum possible sentence.

Representing Qureshi, advocates Prashant Prakash and Quasar Khan argued for bail on the grounds of prolonged under-trial detention, highlighting that Qureshi had been in custody for nearly five years awaiting trial, constituting half of the prescribed punishment period for the alleged offence.

The prosecution alleges that Qureshi remained an active member of the Indian Mujahideen and the Students’ Islamic Movement of India. The case against him revolves around events dating back to September 27, 2001, when SIMI was banned by the Central government.

Despite opposition from the prosecutor, who cited Qureshi’s status as a proclaimed offender and his involvement in multiple cases, the court granted bail. The bench underscored that the severity of the allegations alone cannot be grounds for denying relief under Section 436-A of the CrPC.

The decision to grant bail to Qureshi highlights the complexities of balancing judicial considerations with concerns over national security. As the case unfolds, it will continue to draw attention to the intricacies of counter-terrorism efforts and legal procedures in addressing such cases.