The serial blasts in Delhi took place at multiple locations across the city in a span of an hour on September 13, 2008, killing 26 and injuring 135 others. (File photo)The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to grant bail to the alleged head of the media cell of terror outfit Indian Mujahideen (IM), Mansoor Asghar Peerbhoy, accused of sending emails minutes before a series of blasts rocked Delhi in 2008, noting that prima facie he was at the “centre of this incident”.Peerbhoy, a software engineer from Pune, has been in jail since 18 years, and allegedly sent out emails predicting the blasts minutes before they took place. A bench of Justices Prathiba Singh and Madhu Jain held that his “technical expertise combined with the leadership position attributed to him within the Indian Mujahideen, prima facie suggests that he is extremely well connected with the said 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 (Peerbhoy), 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 (Peerbhoy), is a factor that weighs heavily against the grant of bail,” the bench reasoned.The court recorded that prima facie, Peerbhoy’s role in the blasts was “concerted, conspiratorial and active”, even as the trial court is yet to complete analysis of the evidence in the case. The court ruled that there is a prima facie case against him owing to the “sophisticated file-erasing software deployed to permanently destroy evidence on the recovered electronic devices”, Peerbhoy being identified by a computer shop owner from where he had allegedly purchased laptops, for allegedly hacking of a Wi-Fi network in Mumbai to transmit the email, and the recovery of electronic devices at the time of his arrest.Must Read | 2008 Bengaluru serial blasts: Undertrial accused Abdul Khader dies before verdict“Such level of coordination, planning, funding, logistics and real-time communication was possible only through deliberate and skilled deployment of technology,” the court observed.The Delhi HC also reiterated the Supreme Court’s direction to the trial court to conclude the trial within eight months. In the trial so far, evidence of 303 out of the 305 prosecution witnesses stand concluded. Of the 17 accused in the case, one has died, and one stands discharged. Of the remaining 15, one is out on bail while the remaining 14 remain in jail.“…upon a broader consideration of the material on record, it cannot be said that (Peerbhoy) is not guilty or that the prosecution has not been able to establish anything against (Peerbhoy),” the bench ruled.Story continues below this adThe court added that the allegations against Peerbhoy “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.”“For such brazen and blatant of acts of terrorism, for which (Peerbhoy) has been charged, the allegations against (Peerbhoy) pertain to offences of the gravest nature, for which the law prescribes severe punishments, extending even to the death penalty in appropriate cases,” the court further reasoned.Also Read | The ‘burden’ of proof: As chargesheets surge in volume and data, accused seek access to computersNotably, Peerbhoy, who was also an accused in the 2008 Ahmedabad serial blast, was acquitted in the Ahmedabad case by a trial court in February 2022. A day after he was acquitted by the Ahmedabad court, his father died of a heart attack. He is also facing UAPA charges in an FIR filed in Mumbai.The serial blasts in Delhi took place at multiple locations across Delhi in a span of an hour on September 13, 2008, killing 26 and injuring 135 others. The blasts in the Capital were preceded by blasts in Jaipur on May 13, in Bangalore on July 25, and in Ahmedabad on July 26 that year — with IM claiming responsibility for all of those.Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More