The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied bail to Syed Mamoor Ali, an accused allegedly linked with the Islamic State (ISIS), observing that he had been charged with attempting to create a “ring of terror” in India. The hearing took place a day after the deadly car blast near Delhi’s Red Fort that killed at least twelve people, a context that shaped the remarks made by the bench.

A two-judge bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta delivered the order while hearing Ali’s petition challenging a January decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court that had refused him bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code.

At the start of the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel remarked that it may not be the “best morning” to argue the bail application, given the previous day’s blast in Delhi. The bench responded that it was, in fact, the “best morning to send a message,” signalling the Court’s resolve to take terrorism-related allegations with utmost seriousness.

Ali was arrested in May 2023 after an investigation by the National Investigation Agency. According to the prosecution, he was involved in activities meant to advance ISIS ideology and operations. The NIA’s case includes allegations that Ali formed a WhatsApp group designed to resemble communication channels used by ISIS. During Tuesday’s hearing, the Court asked the defence to explain these actions.

When the bench inquired about the recoveries made in the case, Ali’s counsel stated that nothing had been found except “Islamic literature.” The bench disagreed with this characterisation, pointing out that the chargesheet included allegations that Ali possessed incriminating documents, ISIS-style pamphlets, and a flag resembling that of the terror organisation.

The Court noted that charges had already been framed, establishing a prima facie case. It questioned the intention behind forming a chat group identical to that of ISIS and emphasised that the accused was alleged to be attempting to create instability and terror within the country. “You are accused of trying to create a ring of terror in the country. Sorry,” the bench said while turning down the bail request.

Ali’s counsel argued that no explosives had been recovered from him and informed the Court that the petitioner, in custody for two and a half years, was 70 per cent differently-abled. The bench, however, remained unconvinced, stating it was not inclined to grant bail.

While rejecting the plea, the Court did provide limited relief by directing the trial court to complete the trial within two years. It added that if the proceedings were delayed without fault attributable to the accused, Ali would be entitled to revive his bail application.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in its earlier order, recorded that Ali had allegedly begun absorbing radical content during the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown by watching videos of controversial preacher Zakir Naik. According to the chargesheet, the accused was linked with ISIS operatives, possessed materials supporting the organisation, and even conspired to attack an ordnance factory in Jabalpur to obtain weapons for ISIS-related activities.

With Tuesday’s order, the Supreme Court has reinforced its consistent stance that individuals facing serious terrorism charges must meet a high threshold to obtain bail, especially when investigative agencies have presented material showing a prima facie case.