By: Express News ServiceNew Delhi | November 12, 2025 03:42 AM IST 4 min readJustice Kant said Ali is also accused of “creating turbulence and affecting civility in the country.”The Supreme Court Tuesday rejected the bail plea of a man facing charges, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, of spreading ISIS ideology and conspiring to attack the Jabalpur Ordnance Factory to procure weapons for furthering the terrorist outfit’s activities.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta noted that even preparation to commit a terror act is an offence under the stringent anti-terror legislation. The court said that accused Syed Mamoor Ali alias Mamoor Bhai can apply afresh for bail if the trial is not concluded within the next two years for no fault of his.“We are not inclined to interfere. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the petitioner has been incarcerated for more than two years and further that 19 out of 64 proposed witnesses have already been examined although 94 are mentioned in the chargesheet, we direct the trial court to conclude the trial within two years. Prosecution and defence shall extend all cooperation in the trial. If the trial is not concluded within two years for no fault attributed to the petitioner, it will be open for him to revise his prayer for bail,” the bench said.As soon as the court took up the matter, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for Ali, said that it was “not the best morning to argue this case after the events of yesterday”.His apparent reference was to the bomb blast in the Red Fort area Monday evening that left 13 dead.Justice Mehta, though, sought to disagree and said, it is the “best morning to send a message.”Responding to Justice Nath’s remark that inflammatory material was recovered from the accused, Dave denied this and said that only Islamic literature was found.Referring to allegations that he was part of a WhatsApp group created to spread ISIS ideology, Justice Mehta said, “You formed a WhatsApp group almost identical to ISIS. What is the intention behind that?”Story continues below this adDave said that mere planning was not enough to make out an offence unless it is followed up with some concrete action.Justice Mehta, however, pointed out that there is a prima facie case against the accused. “You are accused of creating a ring of terror in the country,” he said.Justice Kant said Ali is also accused of “creating turbulence and affecting civility in the country.”Dave, however, insisted that it was not enough and something more has to happen for the case to be made out.Story continues below this adThe court pointed out that even preparation is an offence under UAPA.As per NIA, which probed the case, Ali and his co-accused came under the influence of radical Islamic preachers like Zakir Naik during the Covid-19 lockdown and wanted to see Sharia law implemented all over the world, including India, through violent means. They allegedly prepared pamphlets similar to the flags of ISIS and al Qaeda and affixed them on a nearby mosque to attract “like-minded” people, whom they can influence towards the ideology of ISIS.They started a WhatsApp group, which Ali named “Fisabilliah”, to share ideological content.“The investigation further shows that the present appellant and other co-accused persons conspired to attack Ordnance Factory, Jabalpur, to procure the weapons in large quantity in furtherance of their terror activity. They also decided to blast the Jabalpur Ordnance Factory, if they could not succeed in capturing it. The present appellant also suggested to have three Mujahids behind each security personnel in order to capture the factory. They wanted to expand their violence to whole India,” the prosecution alleged as per the HC order, which rejected Ali’s bail plea on January 6 this year. © The Indian Express Pvt LtdTags:supreme courtUAPA