Three accused granted bail after the court cites a lack of evidence and long trial delays; questions raised over investigation standards
BHOPAL — The Madhya Pradesh High Court has granted bail to three men accused in a terrorism case, saying that merely possessing Islamic literature or holding certain beliefs cannot be treated as proof of criminal activity.
The court gave relief to Sheikh Junaid, Mohammad Wasim and Mohammad Karim, arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on charges related to alleged terror links. The recent decision came after the court found no strong evidence and noted delays in the trial.
The three accused were granted bail on a bond of ₹2 lakh each, along with strict conditions.
During the hearing, the court made it clear that “the presence of Islamic literature, by itself, cannot establish involvement in terrorist activities.” It also observed that ideological leanings or what was described as a “radical mindset” cannot be treated as a crime unless backed by concrete actions.
The judges referred to a Supreme Court ruling in the Vernon case while granting relief, indicating that legal standards must be strictly followed in cases involving serious charges.
Legal experts say this observation is significant, as it reinforces the principle that belief alone cannot be criminalised.
According to court proceedings, the NIA had mainly relied on the recovery of Islamic books and related material from the accused. However, the agency could not present strong supporting evidence such as call interception records, digital data, or direct links to any unlawful activity.
The court noted that “no direct or substantial evidence has been placed on record” to justify continued custody under serious charges.
A defence lawyer argued in court, “My clients have been in custody for a long time without any solid proof. Reading religious material is not a crime.”
Another key reason for granting bail was the delay in trial proceedings. The court observed that keeping the accused in custody for an extended period without progress in the case would be unjust.
“The right to a fair and timely trial is essential,” the court noted, adding that prolonged detention without evidence weakens the case further.
Lawyers representing the accused welcomed the decision and said the case was built on weak grounds from the beginning.
One of the defence counsels said, “This order shows that the law still protects individual rights. Allegations must be backed by proof, not assumptions.”
Family members of the accused also expressed relief after the decision. A relative said, “We have been waiting for justice for months. This decision gives us hope.”
The case has also raised wider concerns about how investigations are carried out in sensitive matters.
Some legal observers believe that relying on religious material as a primary basis for arrest can lead to wrongful suspicion.
A senior legal analyst said, “Courts have repeatedly said that evidence must be clear and direct. Otherwise, it risks affecting innocent people.”
The ruling is likely to have wider implications for similar cases across the country. It highlights the need for investigative agencies to follow strict legal standards, especially in cases involving serious allegations like terrorism.
Experts say the judgment reinforces a key legal principle: that possession of religious texts—whether Islamic, Hindu, Christian or any other—cannot be treated as evidence of criminal intent.
While the three accused have been granted bail, the case itself is still ongoing. They will have to follow the conditions set by the court and appear for further hearings.
The NIA has not yet issued a detailed response to the bail order.
