Archive · 1 Oct 2026
Delhi High Court Grants Bail After Five Years’ Custody
The Delhi High Court gave Mohd Shahzad Kamal bail while his terrorism-related trial continues.
He has been in jail since August 2021.
The case involves allegations connected to Harkat-ul-Harb-e-Islam, which prosecutors describe as linked to ISIS.
Prosecutors say Kamal helped provide money and communicate with people involved in the alleged conspiracy.
His lawyers said he had already spent more than five years in custody.
They also said the trial could take a long time because 161 prosecution witnesses were listed.
The court noted that only one witness was being examined.
It also said there was not yet clear evidence proving that certain chats came from Kamal.
Bail does not mean the court found him innocent, and the trial will continue.
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Mohd Shahzad Kamal in a 2018 ISIS-linked terror conspiracy case.
Kamal had been in custody since August 31, 2021, while the prosecution listed 161 witnesses.
The court said the trial was unlikely to conclude soon, with evidence from only one witness being recorded.
The bench found no positive evidence at this stage proving that alleged incriminating chats originated from or were addressed to Kamal.
Kamal must post a Rs 50,000 bond with two sureties, surrender his passport, and report regularly to authorities.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, Mohd Shahzad Kamal, and the National Investigation Agency were central to the proceedings.
- What
- The High Court granted Kamal bail in a 2018 terror conspiracy case and overturned the Special NIA Court’s bail rejection.
- When
- The bail order followed Kamal’s custody from August 31, 2021; the Special Court’s rejected bail order was dated May 29, 2024.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Delhi High Court in New Delhi and concerns alleged activities involving Hapur and other locations.
- Why
- The court cited more than five years of custody, the expected delay in a trial involving 161 witnesses, and the lack of positive evidence at this stage linking Kamal to the alleged chats.
Defense and High Court’s Reasoning
Prosecution’s Position
Length of detention and trial delay
Defense and High Court’s Reasoning
Kamal’s lawyers argued that he had spent about five years in custody and that the trial was progressing slowly, with only one of 161 witnesses under examination. The High Court agreed that the trial was unlikely to conclude soon.
Prosecution’s Position
The National Investigation Agency argued that delay alone should not justify bail in a case prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Evidence linking Kamal to chats
Defense and High Court’s Reasoning
The defense questioned whether the phone number associated with the alleged Facebook and WhatsApp chats belonged to Kamal. The High Court found no positive evidence at this stage showing that the chats originated from or were addressed to him.
Prosecution’s Position
The National Investigation Agency alleged that Kamal communicated with other accused people and played an active role in the conspiracy.
Effect of the bail decision
Defense and High Court’s Reasoning
The High Court said its observations were limited to deciding bail and would not determine the case at trial. It also noted that some co-accused had already received bail.
Prosecution’s Position
The prosecution argued that the court should not examine evidence recorded after the Special Court rejected Kamal’s bail plea and maintained that the allegations warranted continued custody.
- Accused
- Mohd Shahzad Kamal
- Case
- 2018 alleged terror conspiracy involving Harkat-ul-Harb-e-Islam
- Custody
- Since August 31, 2021; more than five years
- Prosecution witnesses
- 161 witnesses listed; evidence from one witness was being recorded
- Charges
- Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 17, 18, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
- Bail conditions
- Rs 50,000 personal bond, two sureties, passport surrender, travel restrictions, regular trial-court appearances, and fortnightly reporting to the National Investigation Agency
- Court clarification
- The bail observations will not affect the trial on its merits