Delhi HC denies bail to Indian Mujahideen operative in 2008 serial blasts case

New Delhi, Jul 7 (PTI) The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant bail to a suspected Indian Mujahideen operative facing trial in a case arising from the September 2008 serial blasts here that claimed 26 lives. A bench of Justices Prathiba M Singh and Madhu Jain dismissed an appeal by Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy challenging a trial court's July 19, 2025 order denying him relief for the third time in the FIR related to the bomb blasts at Karol Bagh. The bench said that although Peerbhoy has spent a "considerable period" as an undertrial, releasing him when cross-examination of two witnesses was yet to be completed could hamper the trial. The bench also said that while it has to consider the right to life of the accused, the adverse impact his release could have on the right to life and safety of common citizens also needs to be seen. It observed that the multiple deaths and injuries in the "orchestrated serial bomb blasts" left a "trail of devastation" and Peerbhoy was accused of committing grave offences having severe punishments extending even to the death penalty, making it an unfit case for bail. It nonetheless asked the trial court to proceed and conclude the trial within eight months as directed by the Supreme Court on April 30. On September 13, 2008, serial bomb blasts occurred at different places in Delhi -- Karol Bagh, Connaught Place and Greater Kailash. In addition, three live bombs were also detected and defused. These serial blasts created panic, resulting in the deaths of 26 people and causing injuries to 135, besides the destruction of property, according to the prosecution. On the same day, the Indian Mujahideen took responsibility for the serial blasts by sending emails to various electronic and print media and also mentioned that the blasts in Rajasthan's Jaipur on May 13, 2008, and Gujarat's Ahmedabad on August 26, 2008, were organised by them as well, the prosecution said. The FIRs were lodged at different police stations in the national capital for the offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Information and Technology Act. In the 61-page judgment, the court said that Peerbhoy, a qualified computer professional who was allegedly the media cell head of the banned terrorist outfit, was prima facie centrally involved in sending the email claiming responsibility in the name of Indian Mujahideen, minutes before the explosions, and therefore, his alleged role was not that of a "peripheral participant." It was of the opinion that the level of "coordination, planning, funding, logistics and real-time communication" required for the serial blasts was possible only through skilled deployment of technology, and the accused was "prima facie at the centre of this incident". "The scale of the carnage, the nationwide panic that ensued and the cold deliberateness with which the organisation publicly announced the attacks, even before they were carried out, together reflect an offence of grave nature," the court observed. "The allegations against the Appellant are not confined to an isolated criminal act, however, to his prima facie conduct which formed part of a larger terrorist conspiracy, having serious implications for the security, integrity and sovereignty of the nation," it added. The court said that although a "mini trial" was not required at this stage, a broad consideration of the material on record showed that it could not be said that Peerbhoy was not guilty. It further said that Peerbhoy’s technical expertise combined with his leadership prima facie indicated that he was extremely well connected with the terrorist organisation and its network, and the propensity of him getting involved in similar activities upon release is extremely high. "In the case of persons such as the Appellant, who are alleged to be part of banned terrorist organisations, there exists a continuing and real threat that they are likely to indulge in similar activities upon release. This consideration, along with the prima facie material on record, and the role attributed to the Appellant, is a factor that weighs heavily against the grant of bail," said the court. The accused contended that he had been falsely implicated and the Delhi Police's evidence failed to establish his involvement. He also emphasised that he had been in custody for approximately 17 years as an undertrial. The prosecution opposed the grant of bail and informed that the trial was being conducted on a day-to-day basis and was nearing conclusion. PTI ADS ADS KSS KSS