The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Delhi Police on bail pleas filed by two alleged Indian Mujahideen operatives who have remained incarcerated for over 12 years in a terror conspiracy case linked to an alleged illegal arms and ammunition factory in Delhi.

A Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi issued notice on petitions filed by Mohd Saquib Ansari and Waqar Azhar.

During the hearing, the Court indicated that the principles laid down in Gulfisha Fatima v. State—the Supreme Court's January 2026 decision that granted bail to five Delhi riots accused while denying relief to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam—would be relevant in deciding the present case.

Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General Anil Kaushik argued that the Delhi High Court had passed a well-reasoned order rejecting bail after applying the principles laid down in Gulfisha Fatima.

The Bench, however, appeared unconvinced by the submission.

"What reasoned order? The judgment referred to is pending for reference. What are you saying? Najeeb will apply with all force here, subject to the way it has been interpreted in Gulfisha. You will have to file a counter," the Court orally observed, referring to the landmark KA Najeeb ruling, which recognised prolonged delay in trial as a valid ground for granting bail in cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The observations assume significance as a larger Bench of the Supreme Court is currently examining the legal framework governing bail under the UAPA.

Last month, while granting interim bail to Delhi riots accused Tasleem Ahmed and Khalid Saifi, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale referred key questions concerning UAPA bail jurisprudence to a larger Bench.

The reference followed observations made by another Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan in Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, where concerns were raised over the Gulfisha Fatima ruling, particularly the denial of bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam.

The Bench had observed that the denial of bail appeared to be at odds with the principles laid down in KA Najeeb, which held that prolonged incarceration and delays in trial could justify bail despite the stringent restrictions under the UAPA.

In contrast, Gulfisha Fatima adopted a more nuanced approach, holding that delay alone cannot be a ground for granting bail. Courts must also consider factors such as the seriousness of the allegations, the strength of the prosecution's case and the stage of the trial.

The Supreme Court has since noted that the issue extends beyond the correctness of any individual judgment and raises a larger constitutional question concerning the interplay between Article 21's guarantee of personal liberty and Parliament's stringent bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA. The issue is presently pending before a larger Bench.

Against this backdrop, the Court observed on Wednesday that KA Najeeb would apply "with all force" to the present case, subject to its interpretation in Gulfisha Fatima.

The case stems from an FIR registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell following the arrest of alleged Indian Mujahideen member Mohd Quateel Siddiqui in November 2011.

According to the prosecution, the investigation revealed a broader conspiracy involving members of the banned organisation and led to arrests across multiple States.

Ansari and Azhar were arrested in March 2014 after Pakistani national Zia-ur-Rehman alias Waqas allegedly named them during interrogation. The prosecution claims they were members of the Rajasthan module of Indian Mujahideen and were involved in planning terrorist attacks.

In April this year, the Delhi High Court refused to grant them bail despite their prolonged incarceration.

A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain held that the allegations against the accused, the materials allegedly recovered from them, and their conviction in a connected Rajasthan case attracted the statutory embargo on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The High Court also relied on Gulfisha Fatima to hold that prolonged incarceration alone was insufficient to justify bail in the circumstances of the case.

Following the High Court's refusal, Ansari and Azhar approached the Supreme Court seeking relief.