I am not a expert on this subject, but deflagration usually means the reactants are consumed by a chemical combustion reaction, i.e., a fuel and an oxidizer must be present. Since an atomic bomb is fueled by a nuclear reaction, as opposed to a chemical reaction - specifically a combustion reaction, then it cannot be described as a deflagration. I assume you already know all of this so this begs the question of why are you asking?
Rooholamin, if you go by the definition of deflagration and detonation, a nuclear explosion looks more like a detonation.
A deflagration is a process of fast combustion where the chemical reaction front travels subsonically. As a result, in a deflagration the expansion of the combustion products immediately follows the propagation of the reaction front.
A detonation is a process where the chemical reaction is triggered by a shock wave. In this case, the expansion of the reaction products doesn't occur until the shock wave has moved some distance into the explosive. A stick of high explosive, for example, will retain it shape for a short period of time "after" the chemical reactions have taken place.
In a nuclear explosion, the material undergoing the chain reaction must retain its density until the neutrons have completed a reasonable part of their task. You can think of the neutron population as playing role of the shock wave in a chemical detonation.
Deflagration and detonation refer to combustion. In the nuclear explosion, the energy is not released due to combustion, therefore neither of the two terms is appropriate to describe it.