Mohd.Saquib Ansari vs State Nct Of Delhi on 22 January, 2026

[Cites 20, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Mohd.Saquib Ansari vs State Nct Of Delhi on 22 January, 2026

Bench: Prathiba M. Singh

                          $~19& 20
                          *    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +             CRL.A. 95/2025
                               MOHD.SAQUIB ANSARI                         .....Appellant
                                              Through: Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi and Ms. Aashi
                                                        Kumari, Advocates.
                                                        SI Abhishek, Special Cell/NDR
                                              versus
                               STATE NCT OF DELHI                         .....Respondent
                                              Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
                                                        Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
                                                        Advs.
                                              WITH
                          +             CRL.A. 252/2025
                               WAQAR AZHAR                                .....Appellant
                                              Through: Ms. Deeksha Dwivedi and Ms. Aashi
                                                        Kumari, Advocates.
                                              versus
                               STATE NCT OF DELHI                         .....Respondent
                                              Through: Mr. Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP with
                                                        Ms. Divya Yadav & Mr. Lalit Luthra,
                                                        Advs.
                                                        SI Abhishek, Special Cell/NDR
                               CORAM:
                               JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
                               JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
                                        ORDER

% 22.01.2026

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. These two appeals arise out of the rejection of the bail order dated 10th January, 2025.

3. These two appeals have been filed by the Appellants under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the impugned orders dated 10th January, 2025 and 29th January, 2025 passed by ld. Additional Sessions Judge-02, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, in Sessions CRL.A. 95/2025 & CRL.A. 252/2025 Page 1 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2026 at 20:32:47 Case No. 8808/2016 arising out of FIR No. 54/2011 registered at P.S. Special Cell, New Delhi under Sections 17/18/18A/18B/19/20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, Sections 201/468/471/474/489B/489C/120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 12 of the Passport Act, 1967, Sections 3/4/5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 25 of Arms Act, 1959. Vide the impugned orders, the bail application of the Appellants have been dismissed by the Trial Court

4. Ld. Counsel for the Appellants submits that the co-accused of the Appellants- Mohammad Maroof has already been granted bail by this Court vide order dated 15th January, 2025 in CRL.A. 560/2024 titled Mohd Maroof vs State (NCT of Delhi). Ld. Counsel submits that the High Court of Rajasthan has already suspended the sentence of the Appellants. Moreover, ld. Counsel for the Appellants submit that the Appellants have served more than 11 years and therefore, they deserve to be released on bail.

5. Mr. Bahri, ld. APP on the other hand submits that there is differentiation in the present case in comparison to CRL.A. 560/2024. Ld. APP submits that in CRL.A. 560/2024 where bail was granted by this Court, no explosives were recovered from the said Accused person. But in the present cases, from the premises of both the Appellants, explosive material was recovered. Further, ld. APP submits that the Appellants were convicted by the Special Designated Court in Jaipur in the connected FIRs.

6. Mr. Bahri, ld. APP has impressed upon the Court that there cannot be parity in bail matters. Reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Neeru Yadav v. State of U.P., (2014) 16 SCC 508.

7. However, ld. Counsel for the Appellants submit that the sentence of the Appellants were suspended on different considerations i.e.,that the co-

CRL.A. 95/2025 & CRL.A. 252/2025 Page 2 of 3

This is a digitally signed order.

8. In order to appreciate the difference between the present appeals and the case where bail has already been granted by this Court i.e., CRL.A. 560/2024, let the judgment of conviction passed by the Special Designated Court in Jaipur be placed on record by the next date of hearing.

9. List on 18th February, 2026 on Top of the Board.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J MADHU JAIN, J JANUARY 22, 2026 Rahul/ck CRL.A. 95/2025 & CRL.A. 252/2025 Page 3 of 3 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/01/2026 at 20:32:47

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders