The Delhi High Court on Tuesday dismissed the bail application filed by Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy, who is alleged to be an operative of the Indian Mujahideen, in connection with the 2008 serial bomb blasts that struck Ahmedabad, Mumbai and Delhi. A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Madhu Jain examined the appeal against the trial court’s order dated 19 July 2025, which had refused bail to the accused.

The bench recorded that the prosecution has portrayed Peerbhoy as the head of the media cell of the Indian Mujahideen. According to the prosecution’s case, he transmitted an electronic mail containing the phrase “message of death” that claimed responsibility for the bomb attacks exactly five minutes after the mail was sent. The court observed that such precise timing, coupled with the simultaneous dissemination of information to both electronic and print media, indicates a high degree of coordination, planning and logistical support. The bench concluded that this level of sophistication could only be achieved through the deployment of skilled technical expertise, and that Peerbhoy occupied a central position in that network.

In assessing the gravity of the offence, the court highlighted the human cost of the blasts. It noted that twenty‑six persons lost their lives and more than one hundred individuals sustained injuries across the three cities. The bench emphasised that the offence is not only serious under the Indian Penal Code but also attracts stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the Explosive Substances Act and the Information Technology Act.

The prosecution’s case further alleges that Peerbhoy, in concert with other accused persons, dispatched e‑mails to various media outlets immediately following the blasts in Ahmedabad, Mumbai and Delhi. Upon his arrest by the Mumbai Police in September 2008, investigators seized a range of electronic equipment from his possession, including a laptop, a Wi‑Fi hotspot finder, a radio frequency signal detector, a hard disk, a hidden camera detector and an internet connector. The bench took note of these recoveries as corroborative material supporting the prosecution’s contention that the accused facilitated the communication strategy of the outfit.

Peerbhoy’s defence challenged the trial court’s denial of bail on the grounds of alleged insufficiency of evidence and the prolonged period of incarceration. The division bench, however, found that the materials placed on record by the prosecution sufficiently establish a prima facie case linking the accused to the conspiracy and the subsequent transmission of the “message of death” mail. The bench held that, given the nature of the charges, the potential threat to public safety and the accused’s alleged role in a terrorist organisation, the considerations for granting bail were outweighed by the need to ensure the integrity of the investigation and the trial.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s order refusing bail was affirmed. The accused remains in judicial custody pending the conclusion of the trial. The decision underscores the Delhi High Court’s approach to bail applications in cases involving alleged terrorist activities, where the gravity of the offence and the alleged involvement in organised violence weigh heavily against the grant of pre‑trial release.