In the recent Manzar Imam v. NIA case, the Delhi High Court ordered the special court to rule on the bail request of a man detained under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) within 75 days.
This was done in light of the fact that Manzer Imam, the accused, had spent the previous nine years in prison without even having charges filed against him. Since the accused had not yet requested bail through the trial court, Justice Jasmeet Singh declined to consider the bail request that was before him. As a result, permission was given to change one’s mind and ask the special court for bail.
Imam was detained by the NIA in 2013 on suspicion of being an agent of the terrorist group Indian Mujahedeen (IM) who was waging war against the government and recruiting people for terrorist acts. In addition, he faces charges for conspiring with criminals and belonging to a terrorist group.
After the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), representing for NIA, argued that the accused had to first approach the trial court to avail himself of his remedy for bail, the High Court withdrew the bail request.
The applicant then sought to withdraw the application while reserving the right to file a similar complaint with the Sessions Court. However, given the lengthy detention, the court was urged to set a deadline for deciding the bail application. The trial court was given the order to hear the matter quickly after the court determined that the request was warranted.
In contrast to the respondents, who were represented by SPP for NIA Shilpa Singh, Advocate Aquib Ahmad, and Insp. Bimal Singh, the applicant was represented by advocate Kartik Murukutla.