Institute of Legal and Management Studies

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to grant bail to and man accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) for allegedly being part of a conspiracy to promote ISIS ideology and carry out terror activities.

A bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta rejected the SLP filed by the petitioner, who has been incarcerated for over 2 years, against Madhya Pradesh High Court order that refused to grant him bail.

“We are not inclined to interfere. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated for more than 2 years and further that 19 out of 64 proposed witnesses have already been examined although 94 are mentioned in the chargesheet, we direct the trial court to conclude the trial within 2 years. Prosecution and defence shall extend all cooperation in the trial. If the trial is not concluded within 2 years for no fault attributed to the petitioner, it will be open for him to revise his prayer for bail”, the Court held.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Dave appeared for the petitioner. At the outset, Dave remarked, “Not the best morning to argue this case after the events of yesterday”, presumably referring to the car blast in Delhi yesterday that claimed several lives. However Justice Mehta responded, “Best morning to send a message.”

Justice Nath pointed out, “It is admitted fact that inflammatory material was recovered from you.”

Dave said that the only material recovered from his client was Islamic literature. The bench, however, noted that the case involved allegations of forming a WhatsApp group similar to that of ISIS.

Dave countered that the protected witness had deposed that NIA officers were pressuring him to give false testimony and that he did not wish to testify.

Justice Mehta asked, “Leave aside the witness, what about the recovery? You formed a WhatsApp group almost identical to ISIS. What is the intention behind that?”

Dave submitted that under the meaning of conspiracy, mere planning was not enough and added, “If I just keep thinking in my head that I have to blow up a place…”

The Court noted that a prima facie case has been established against the petitioner.

Justice Mehta remarked, “You are accused of creating a ring of terror in the country.” Justice Nath added, “Creating turbulence and affecting civility in the country.”

Dave reiterated that something more was required to establish guilt. However, the bench pointed out that Preparation is an offence under UAPA.

Dave argued that no RDX or explosive had been recovered. He emphasised that the petitioner, who is 70% disabled, had already spent two and a half years in custody.

However, the Court refused to grant bail. Taking note of the period of incarceration and the stage of the trial, it directed the trial court to conclude the proceedings within two years.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court had on January 6, 2025, rejected the petitioner's appeal against the Special NIA Court's order refusing bail.

The High Court had noted that the appellant was accused of being associated with ISIS, forming a WhatsApp group named “Fisabilillah” whose display picture resembled the ISIS flag, and conspiring with co-accused to attack the Jabalpur Ordnance Factory to procure weapons.

It found that the materials seized, including ISIS-related videos, literature, and communication records, established a prima facie case under Sections 13, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the UAPA.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 12739/2025

Case Title – Syed Mamoor Ali @ Mamoor Bhai v. Union of India