New Delhi, March 21 -- The Delhi high court on Friday granted bail to two men in connection with a terror conspiracy case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). In its 29-page judgment, the court noted that the allegations against the accused were limited to their participation in social media groups where anti-national content propagating terrorism was shared, with no specific claim that they createdsuch groups or disseminated objectionable material themselves. A bench of justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja granted bail to the two men, Haris Nisar Langoo and Zamin Adil Bhat. They were arrested in October 2021 in a case registered by the NIA under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The case stemmed from intelligence received by Centre regarding a conspiracy, both in physical and virtual domains, to carry out violent terrorist acts in Jammu & Kashmir and other parts of India, including New Delhi. The NIA alleged that the conspiracy was orchestrated by hybrid cadres and sleeper cells linked to proscribed terrorist organisations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM), Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM) and Al-Badr, operating through front groups like TRF, People Against Fascist Forces (PAFF), Muslim Janbaaz Force (MJF) and Mujahideen Ghazwatul Hind (MGH). The NIA had said that Zamin Adil Bhat was highly radicalised and actively disseminated videos, images and audio content linked to the Islamic State (IS) and Islamic State J&K (ISJK) to influence and recruit others for jihad. He was also allegedly in contact with ISJK sympathisers and circulated material relating to the concept of "Wilayat-Al-Hind." Haris, the NIA said, allegedly operated a YouTube channel titled "No Compromise on Tawheed,". The court observed that they had remained in custody for over four years, with no certainty of the trial concluding within a reasonable time, and held that their continued detention, considering their "limited role," would not serve the ends of justice. "As regards the material found on the digital devices of the appellants, which may even be propagating anti-national activities, in our view, the same may not justify the continuation of the prolonged detention of the appellants at the trial stage. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellants are the creators of this content or had further disseminated this content to others. The distinction between ideological alignment and operational participation is constitutionally significant and must be borne in mind while applying the prima facie standard under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA to the specific facts and material attributed to each of the appellant(s)," the court said....