Delhi High Court Grants UAPA Bail to Sobiya Aziz and Kamran Reshi After Five-Year Custody; Finds 359-Witness Terror Trial Unlikely to Conclude Soon
Delhi High Court Releases Two UAPA Accused on ₹2-Lakh Bonds; Imposes Strict Travel, Witness-Contact, Social-Media and Fortnightly Reporting Conditions Pending Terror Trial
Facts
The Delhi High Court decided together appeals filed by Sobiya Aziz and Kamran Ashraf Reshi under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. They challenged separate Trial Court orders refusing them bail in NIA v. Tariq Ahmed Dar & Ors., arising from RC No.29/2021/NIA/DLI.
The NIA registered the FIR on 10 October 2021 under Sections 120B, 121A, 122 and 123 IPC and Sections 18, 18A, 18B, 20, 38 and 39 UAPA. The prosecution alleged a wider conspiracy involving cadres and affiliates of proscribed terrorist organisations operating in Jammu & Kashmir with Pakistan-based handlers, including alleged recruitment, radicalisation, procurement of arms and planning of terrorist acts.
Sobiya Aziz
Sobiya was arrested on 22 October 2021. The NIA alleged that diaries containing writings concerning Shariat law, Islamic State ideology and other jihadi material, along with an Islamic State flag, were recovered from her residence.
She was originally charged under Sections 120B and 121A IPC read with Sections 18, 20, 38 and 39 UAPA, although she was subsequently discharged of offences under Sections 20, 38 and 39 UAPA.
Kamran Ashraf Reshi
Kamran was Accused No.11. He was arrested on 20 October 2021 when he was approximately 21 years old and had also spent nearly five years in custody by the time the appeals were decided.
The NIA alleged that he was associated with online propaganda groups linked with terrorist organisations, Pakistan-based handlers, threatening posters and radicalising lectures.
The decisive procedural circumstance was the pace of the trial: only 21 of 359 cited prosecution witnesses had been examined. The Court concluded that there was no realistic possibility of the trial concluding soon.
Issues
The principal issues were:
- Whether prolonged incarceration of nearly five years and the remote prospect of early trial completion justified bail notwithstanding Section 43D(5) UAPA.
- How the constitutional right to personal liberty and speedy trial under Article 21 should operate alongside the statutory restrictions on bail under UAPA.
- Whether the assessment must be individualised according to each accused’s alleged role rather than based merely upon the gravity of the overall conspiracy.
- Whether Sobiya’s status as a woman, her medical ailments and the grant of bail to several co-accused strengthened her claim.
- Whether the material attributed specifically to Kamran, when weighed against his prolonged pre-trial detention, justified continued incarceration.
Sobiya Aziz’s Arguments
Sobiya argued that she was 33 years old, had no criminal antecedents, had undergone almost five years’ incarceration, and that the trial had barely progressed.
She relied principally upon Gulfisha Fatima, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi and Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb to contend that prolonged incarceration coupled with an unlikely early conclusion of trial entitled her to bail.
She additionally relied upon:
- her status as a woman;
- various medical ailments;
- her discharge from Sections 20, 38 and 39 UAPA;
- the absence of criminal antecedents;
- bail granted to several co-accused; and
- the contention that the prosecution material did not establish a sufficient prima facie role.
Her counsel argued that her alleged presence in a vehicle transporting arms did not establish knowledge of the contents of the box being transported.
Regarding the diaries, she argued that even assuming objectionable writings existed, there was no evidence that she had disseminated or shared those writings publicly.
Kamran Reshi’s Arguments
Kamran similarly relied upon prolonged incarceration and the slow progress of the trial.
He argued that there was no evidence establishing that:
- he was part of the Abu Zamzam Telegram group;
- he disseminated jihadi videos or radical messages;
- he had operationally participated in terrorist activity;
- he contacted A1, A2 or Haq Parast @ Abu Hamza; or
- he belonged to the alleged online terrorist propaganda groups.
He characterised the prosecution case against him as predominantly digital and non-violent.
Regarding the threatening pamphlet, Kamran argued that it was recovered from his house rather than his personal possession and there was no evidence that he authored or circulated it.
NIA’s Arguments
The NIA opposed both appeals.
For Sobiya, it alleged that she was part of a larger conspiracy to wage war against India and assist terrorist activity. It relied upon witness statements, disclosure statements, recovered diaries and a handwriting expert’s report.
The NIA also argued that a prosecution witness had received a death threat and therefore releasing Sobiya could create a risk of witness intimidation.
Against Kamran, the NIA relied upon:
- two mobile phones;
- a threatening pamphlet;
- Pakistani numbers stored in his phone;
- alleged attendance at radicalising lectures;
- alleged association with terrorists;
- alleged dissemination of radicalising material; and
- alleged connections with Haq Parast @ Abu Hamza and the Abu Zamzam Telegram channel.
The NIA maintained that delay alone could not override the statutory restrictions under UAPA.
Analysis of the Law
1. Article 21 Continues to Operate Despite Section 43D(5) UAPA
The High Court relied heavily on the constitutional principle recognised in K.A. Najeeb.
Statutory restrictions such as Section 43D(5) do not remove the constitutional courts’ jurisdiction to grant bail where continued detention infringes fundamental rights.
Where there is no realistic likelihood of trial concluding within a reasonable period and the accused has already undergone substantial incarceration, the rigours of the statutory embargo may “melt down.”
2. Delay Cannot Mechanically Result in Bail
The Court simultaneously recognised that delay is not an automatic or isolated ground for bail in every UAPA prosecution.
The inquiry must consider:
- nature of allegations;
- statutory context;
- stage and realistic trajectory of trial;
- reasons for delay;
- accused’s individual role;
- prima facie material;
- risks upon release; and
- national-security considerations.
Thus, the judgment does not create a mechanical “five years equals bail” formula.
3. Section 43D(5) Requires an Accused-Specific Inquiry
The Court referred to the principle that the Section 43D(5) inquiry must focus upon the individual accused’s role and attribution.
Mere collective allegations arising from a broad conspiracy cannot substitute an accused-specific assessment.
The Court reproduced the structured inquiry requiring consideration of whether:
- prosecution material, taken at face value, satisfies statutory ingredients;
- the accused has a real and meaningful nexus with terrorist or unlawful activity rather than peripheral association; and
- the statutory threshold is crossed specifically against that accused.
4. “Bail Is the Rule” Remains a Constitutional Principle Even Under UAPA
The Court discussed Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, where the Supreme Court stated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” is not merely a CrPC slogan but flows from Articles 21 and 22 and the presumption of innocence.
Special legislation may regulate how that principle operates, particularly in national-security cases, but cannot altogether reverse the constitutional relationship between liberty and detention.
5. Pending Larger-Bench Reference Did Not Prevent Decision
The High Court noted that the precise interplay between Article 21 and Section 43D(5) had been referred to a larger Bench in Tasleem Ahmed.
Nevertheless, relying upon Union Territory of Ladakh v. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference, it held that High Courts must apply the law as it presently stands and cannot refuse to decide merely because a precedent has been doubted or referred to a larger Bench.
Precedent Analysis
Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713
The foundational precedent. It establishes that Section 43D(5) does not oust constitutional jurisdiction to grant bail where prolonged incarceration and delayed trial render continued detention constitutionally unacceptable.
Gulfisha Fatima v. State (GNCTD), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10
The judgment was considered for the structured approach to prolonged incarceration, Article 21 and the accused-specific application of Section 43D(5).
Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. NIA, 2026 INSC 503
Particularly important because the Supreme Court reaffirmed that once timely completion of trial becomes unrealistic and substantial incarceration has already occurred, constitutional courts may grant bail notwithstanding Section 43D(5).
Tasleem Ahmed v. State (GNCTD)
The Supreme Court has referred the broader Article 21–Section 43D(5) question to a larger Bench. However, it expressly did not dilute K.A. Najeeb and itself granted interim bail after considering prolonged incarceration.
Alemla Jamir v. NIA
The Court noted that the Supreme Court had granted bail considering both long incarceration and the fact that the accused was a woman. This was relevant particularly to Sobiya Aziz.
Court’s Reasoning
Sobiya Aziz
The Court identified four cumulative circumstances:
- nearly five years’ incarceration;
- she is a woman;
- she suffers from various medical ailments; and
- the trial is unlikely to conclude anytime soon.
Her medical report recorded chronic headaches, moderate anaemia, uterine fibroids with abnormal uterine bleeding, recurrent urinary tract infection and left thyroid nodules.
The Court also noted that numerous co-accused had already received bail from the Trial Court, Delhi High Court or Supreme Court.
It consequently held that Sobiya was entitled to bail.
Importantly, although the NIA referred to a death threat received by a prosecution witness, the Court found no positive link between that threat and Sobiya.
Kamran Reshi
Kamran had similarly undergone almost five years’ custody, with no realistic possibility of the trial ending soon.
After examining the allegations and NIA material, the Court held that the long period of incarceration, juxtaposed against the material attributed to him, justified his release on bail.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the bail claims of both Sobiya Aziz and Kamran Ashraf Reshi, setting aside the Trial Court orders rejecting their applications.
Both were directed to be released subject to stringent conditions, including:
- personal bond of ₹2 lakh each with two sureties;
- surrender of passport;
- no travel outside India without Trial Court permission;
- use of only one disclosed mobile/landline;
- mandatory cooperation with trial;
- no witness contact or intimidation;
- no tampering with electronic or documentary evidence;
- no public statements concerning merits of the pending case;
- no participation in activities prejudicial to public order;
- no joining social-media groups circulating anti-national material; and
- reporting to the Investigating Officer once every fortnight.
The Court expressly clarified that its observations were only for deciding bail and would not constitute findings on the merits of the prosecution case.
Case Details
Case: Kamran Ashraf Reshi v. National Investigation Agency with Sobiya Aziz v. National Investigation Agency
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Numbers: CRL.A. 453/2023 and CRL.A. 528/2026
Bench: Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja
Judgment by: Justice Navin Chawla
Reserved on: 25 August 2026
Date of Judgment: 3 September 2026
Underlying Case: SC No. 2/2022, NIA v. Tariq Ahmad Dar & Ors., arising from RC No.29/2021/NIA/DLI
Result: Both appeals allowed for purposes of bail; rejection orders set aside; Sobiya Aziz and Kamran Ashraf Reshi directed to be released on stringent conditions pending trial.
