A day after the car explosion near Delhi’s Red Fort station that killed nine people, the Supreme Court on Tuesday, 11 November 2025, refused to grant bail to an accused facing charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act) (UAPA) in an unrelated case.
The case was heard by a Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, who observed that it was the “best morning to send a message” as they declined to release the accused on bail.
At the start of the hearing, Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for the petitioner, made a pointed remark referencing the previous day’s terror attack in the national capital.
“Not the best morning to argue this case after the events of yesterday,” he said.
In response, Justice Vikram Nath remarked, “Best morning to send a message.”
Inflammatory Material and Online Activity
During the hearing, the Bench noted that “inflammatory material” had been recovered from the accused. However, Dave argued that the documents seized were not incriminating in nature, saying, “Only Islamic literature was recovered.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta, referring to the evidence on record, noted that the accused had created a WhatsApp group on which a flag resembling that of ISIS was displayed.
Dave countered by highlighting the accused’s prolonged incarceration, stating that his client had been in jail for over two years. He also pointed out that no RDX or explosive materials were found in the investigation and that the accused was 70 percent disabled.
Bench Cites Serious Allegations, Sets Deadline for Trial
Despite the defence’s submissions, the Bench held that the charges were serious and that the nature of the materials recovered and the alleged online activity warranted continued custody. The Court therefore declined to grant bail. However, the judges also directed that the trial proceedings be expedited, setting a clear timeframe for conclusion.
The Bench ordered that the trial “should be concluded within two years,” adding that the accused would be permitted to reapply for bail if the delay in trial was not attributable to him.
The hearing took place just a day after the November 10 car blast near Delhi’s Red Fort station, which claimed nine lives and injured several others. The timing of the case and the gravity of recent events appeared to weigh heavily on the proceedings, with the Court’s remarks underscoring a broader message about the judiciary’s stance on terrorism-related offences.
The accused remains in judicial custody as the trial court continues to hear evidence under the UAPA, India’s principal anti-terror legislation.
(Source: Bar and Bench)
Subscribe to our channels on WhatsApp, Telegram, Instagram and YouTube to get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.
