The apex court criticises the Uttar Pradesh government for its late appeal, highlighting procedural lapses and failure to file a timely charge sheet
NEW DELHI/LUCKNOW — In a strong rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh government, the Supreme Court has upheld the default bail granted to 11 Muslim youths who had been accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of links with banned terrorist organisations.
The apex court dismissed the state’s petition as delayed and lacking seriousness, giving a significant relief to the accused and a setback to the state’s legal credibility.
The ruling has sparked discussions over procedural accountability, especially in cases that involve grave allegations like terrorism. The court noted that the state’s appeal came over a year and a half after the high court’s decision, far beyond the legal deadline of 90 days.
The 11 youths — Muhammad Aleem, Nawazish Ansari, Luqman, Mudassar, Mukhtar, Nadeem, Habibul Islam, Haris, Aas Muhammad, Qari Shahzad and Ali Noor — were arrested from various cities in Uttar Pradesh. They were accused of having links with outlawed organisations such as Al-Qaeda and Jaish-e-Mohammed.
However, the investigating agencies failed to file a charge sheet within the legally required time frame of 90 days. Instead, the lower court granted an extension for the investigation without giving the accused a chance to be heard, which the Allahabad High Court later found to be unlawful.
In a detailed judgment, the high court had ruled in favour of default bail, stating that extending the investigation period without following proper legal procedures violates the rights of the accused.
During the hearing, Justice MM Sundaresh of the Supreme Court did not hold back in questioning the state’s conduct. He said, “If the state was truly serious about this case, why was there such a delay in filing the appeal? This is not how the law is supposed to function.”
The bench found no error in the high court’s reasoning and ruled that it would not interfere in the matter. “We are not inclined to disturb the high court’s well-reasoned judgment. The delay speaks for itself,” the court said firmly.
Senior advocate Gaurav Agarwal, who represented the accused in the apex court, argued that all the 11 men had been strictly following bail conditions and had not been involved in any illegal activity since their release.
“There have been no fresh charges or complaints against them. The appeal is not only delayed but also weak in legal grounding,” Agarwal submitted to the bench.
He added that the bail was granted in accordance with the law, and the high court had acted within its rights.
The legal representation for the 11 accused was marked by a united effort from the Muslim legal community. Advocate on Record Chand Qureshi led the team, which included Shahid Nadeem, Arif Ali, Mujahid Ahmed and others. They collectively defended the rights of the accused and pointed out the procedural faults in the state’s approach.
“This was not just a legal battle, it was a fight for justice against the misuse of power,” said Advocate Shahid Nadeem after the hearing. “The state’s careless handling of such a sensitive case is deeply worrying,” added Advocate Arif Ali.
Several human rights organisations have raised concerns over the repeated targeting of Muslim youths under anti-terror laws, often without strong evidence. This case, they argue, is one among many where young Muslim men are falsely implicated and forced to undergo long legal battles despite weak or non-existent charges.
Speaking to Clarion India over the phone, social activist and retired IPS officer Arif Raza said, “The pattern is disturbing. The UAPA is being used not for genuine national security but for political messaging. The Supreme Court’s decision is a reminder that rights cannot be sacrificed at the altar of suspicion.”
Families of the accused expressed relief and bitterness. Speaking from Kanpur, the father of one of the accused, Muhammad Aleem, said, “My son was arrested on false grounds. For nearly two years, we were treated like criminals. Now, the court has given us some hope.”
“We were made to feel like enemies of the nation without any proof,” said the mother of Nawazish Ansari, wiping away tears. “We are Muslim, but we are also Indian. Is that so hard to accept?”
Legal experts and former judges have weighed in on the verdict. Retired Allahabad High Court judge Justice Aftab Husain remarked: “Bail is not a favour; it is a right if the state fails to follow procedure. This ruling restores faith in the judiciary.”
Similarly, lawyer and activist Mehmood Pracha commented, “This case once again shows that the UAPA is often used selectively. If you cannot file a charge sheet on time, you have no business keeping innocent people in jail.”
The Uttar Pradesh government has so far not issued any statement following the court’s decision. However, insiders in the legal department have privately admitted that the delay in filing the petition was “embarrassing” and showed poor coordination between the investigating agencies and legal officers.
An official from the state home department, speaking on condition of anonymity, said: “There was confusion about whether to file an appeal at all. By the time a decision was taken, the window had already closed.”
Now out on bail, the 11 young men are calling for an inquiry into their arrests and compensation for the time lost in prison.
“We want justice beyond bail,” said Qari Shahzad. “Why were we arrested without evidence? Who will return the months of our lives spent in jail? The government must answer.”
Ali Noor added, “Just because we are Muslim, does it mean we are guilty? We want the country to think about that.”
This case has become more than just a legal matter—it’s a warning against the reckless use of harsh laws, especially when they disproportionately target a single community. While the Supreme Court’s ruling gives relief to these 11 Muslim youths, it also exposes a deeper problem in how terrorism cases are handled in India.
The court’s message was simple: delay in justice is denial of justice, and rights of citizens—regardless of religion—must not be ignored. For now, the 11 men can return to their families, but the trauma of their arrest and long legal ordeal leaves many unanswered questions.
“The real culprits are still free, and innocent lives are being ruined for headlines,” said Advocate Mujahid Ahmed. “It’s time the state stops using Muslims as easy targets.”
