Delhi HC grants bail to accused in ISIS-linked terror conspiracy case after over 5 years in custody
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohd Shahzad Kamal after five years in custody, citing a lengthy trial and lack of evidence in the ISIS-linked case.
The Delhi High Court has granted bail to an accused in a 2018 terror conspiracy case involving alleged links to ISIS-affiliated groups, noting that the individual has already spent over five years in custody.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Arun Bhardwaj set aside a previous order from the Special NIA Court that had denied bail to Mohd Shahzad Kamal. The court highlighted that with 161 prosecution witnesses cited, the trial is unlikely to reach a conclusion in the near future.
Prolonged Incarceration and Trial Delays
Mohd Shahzad Kamal has been in custody since August 31, 2021. The case involves allegations related to the activities of Harkat-Ul-Harb-E-Islam, which the National Investigation Agency (NIA) describes as an ISIS-affiliated terrorist organization. The NIA alleged that Kamal was involved in a conspiracy to arrange funds for terrorist activities.
During the proceedings, Kamal’s legal team pointed out the massive scale of the trial, noting that out of the 161 witnesses listed by the prosecution, only one (PW-42) had been examined. They argued that keeping an individual in custody for such an extended period without a swift trial violates fundamental rights.
Challenges to Prosecution Evidence
The prosecution's case relies heavily on several pieces of evidence, including:
- Facebook and WhatsApp chat logs.
- Alleged disclosures made by co-accused Mohammad Absar.
- The recovery of Rs 30,000.
- Statements from various prosecution witnesses.
However, the defense raised significant doubts regarding the digital evidence. They argued that there was no concrete material to prove that the phone number associated with the incriminating chats actually belonged to Kamal. The High Court bench observed that, at this stage, there was no "positive evidence" confirming that the chats originated from or were addressed to the accused.
Constitutional Rights vs. UAPA Provisions
The NIA had strongly opposed the bail plea, arguing that Kamal played an active role in the conspiracy and that a delay in trial should not automatically serve as grounds for bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The agency also contended that the court should not re-examine evidence already considered by the Special Court.
In its ruling, the High Court balanced these concerns by referencing Supreme Court precedents. The court emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21. While acknowledging that delay alone does not guarantee bail in UAPA cases, the court noted that the specific circumstances—including the stage of the trial and the lack of immediate evidence—justified the release.
The court further clarified that while the Supreme Court has referred the interplay between Article 21 and Section 43D(5) of the UAPA to a larger Bench, the High Court is still bound to decide cases based on current law.
Conditions of Release
While granting bail, the court imposed several strict conditions to ensure Kamal's presence during the trial:
- A personal bond of Rs 50,000 with two sureties.
- Surrender of his passport.
- A restriction on leaving the country and his native Hapur district.
- Regular appearances before the trial court.
- Fortnightly reporting to the relevant authorities.
The court clarified that these observations were made solely for the purpose of the bail application and would not influence the final outcome of the trial on its merits.