Delhi HC Lists Plea Of Baramulla MP Rashid Engineer On July 31

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday adjourned the hearing of Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh, popularly known as Engineer Rashid, and rescheduled it for July 31.

The hearing was delayed as senior counsel for Rashid, Advocate N Hariharan, was unable to reach court due to heavy rain and traffic congestion.

A division bench comprising Justices Vivek Chaudhary and Shalinder Kaur was to hear the plea, which sought interim bail for Rashid to attend the ongoing Parliament session.

Advocate Vikhyat Oberoi appeared and requested a pass-over for the senior counsel, which the court allowed. However, even on the second call, the senior advocate could not appear.

The court noted that Rashid’s fresh bail application raised the same issues as an earlier pending modification petition and advised the defense to focus on pressing that earlier plea. Rashid’s legal team emphasized that this interim bail was sought as an alternative.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra and Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik appeared virtually on behalf of the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The court had previously issued a notice to the NIA on July 25 regarding the interim bail request.

Background

On July 22, a Special NIA court had rejected Rashid’s interim bail plea but granted him custody parole from July 24 to August 4, specifically for attending parliamentary sessions. Rashid requested an extension of custody parole from July 23 to August 21 to cover the entire Monsoon session. He also sought to waive the order requiring him to bear his travel and other related expenses.

Rashid remains in judicial custody in a terror funding case linked to Hafiz Saeed. His legal team argued that he had been granted interim bail three times before for state election campaigning and had previously been allowed to attend Parliament while in custody on February 10 and March 25, 2025.

The NIA opposed the interim bail, insisting that if Rashid is permitted to attend Parliament, he must pay for his travel expenses. However, Rashid’s counsel countered that attending Parliament is a public duty, not a personal favor, and therefore, he should not be burdened with these costs.