The Delhi High Court has refused bail to Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy, an accused in the 2008 Delhi serial blasts case, holding that considerations of national security and the sovereignty of the country take precedence where they come into conflict with an individual's claim to personal liberty.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain dismissed Peerbhoy's third bail application, observing that the seriousness of the allegations, the nature of the evidence, and the stage of the trial did not justify his release. The Court also held that his prolonged incarceration as an undertrial, by itself, was insufficient to overcome the statutory restrictions on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The prosecution case relates to the coordinated bomb blasts that occurred across Delhi on September 13, 2008, including explosions at Karol Bagh, Greater Kailash-I, and Connaught Place. The attacks claimed 26 lives and injured more than 130 people.

According to the prosecution, an email claiming responsibility for the attacks was circulated to several national and international media organisations just minutes before the explosions. Investigators alleged that Peerbhoy, along with a co-accused, accessed an unsecured Wi-Fi network in Mumbai to transmit the message.

The investigation further claimed that laptops allegedly used in the operation contained specialised software designed to erase digital evidence. Despite attempts to wipe the data, forensic experts reportedly recovered documents linked to the email sent before the blasts. The prosecution also relied on witness statements identifying the purchase of the laptops and the recovery of electronic devices, including Wi-Fi detection equipment and surveillance gadgets, from the accused.

The High Court observed that the allegations portrayed Peerbhoy as a technically skilled individual with expertise in computer systems and cybersecurity who allegedly played a significant role in the functioning of the banned organisation's media wing. At the stage of considering bail, the Court found sufficient material to conclude that the accusations against him were prima facie true.

The defence argued that Peerbhoy had spent nearly 17 years in custody without the completion of the trial and relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in K.A. Najeeb to contend that such prolonged incarceration violated his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench, however, held that the length of custody could not be viewed in isolation, particularly in cases involving allegations of terrorism. Referring to the Supreme Court's recent decision in Gulfisha Fatima, the Court noted that the gravity of the alleged offences, the large-scale loss of life, and the manner in which the attacks were allegedly executed distinguished the case from ordinary criminal prosecutions.

The Court also took note of the fact that the trial had reached its concluding stage, with only a limited number of witnesses remaining to be examined. It observed that releasing the accused at such a crucial stage could adversely affect the ongoing proceedings.

Additionally, the Bench expressed concern that the appellant's alleged leadership role within the banned organisation and his technical expertise could indicate continuing links with its network. Considering these factors along with the prima facie evidence placed on record, the Court concluded that no case for grant of bail had been made out.

Accordingly, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal and directed the trial court to complete the trial within the timeline prescribed by the Supreme Court.

Case: Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi). Bench: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain. Decision Date: July 7, 2026.