The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the National Investigation Agency to respond to Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah’s petition challenging the Delhi High Court’s order denying him bail in a terror funding case.
Interim Bail Request Rejected
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the NIA but refused to grant Shah interim bail at this stage. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing on behalf of Shah, pressed for temporary relief citing his client’s ill health.
He submitted that the petitioner was “very sick” and in urgent need of medical attention outside prison.
The court, however, declined to extend interim bail and instead scheduled the matter for detailed hearing after two weeks.
Court’s Earlier Decision
Shah had earlier approached the Delhi High Court seeking bail in the case but faced rejection on June 12 this year. The high court had observed that releasing him could not be considered safe, as there remained a likelihood of him indulging in unlawful activities and attempting to influence witnesses.
The court underlined the seriousness of the allegations and the possible impact of his release on the ongoing trial, which involves sensitive charges relating to terror financing and conspiracy.
Case Background
The NIA arrested Shabir Shah on June 4, 2019, in connection with its investigation into a wider conspiracy case. The probe was initiated in 2017, when the agency registered a case against 12 individuals for allegedly raising and collecting funds to foment unrest in Jammu and Kashmir.
The charges include using the funds to instigate stone pelting, damaging public property, and conspiring to wage war against the Government of India. According to the NIA, the accused were part of a larger network that sought to destabilize the region by channeling money into disruptive activities.
Shah, who has been in custody for more than four years, has consistently denied the allegations against him. His legal team maintains that the charges are politically motivated and that his prolonged incarceration without bail is unjustified, especially given his deteriorating health.
The outcome of the next hearing will determine whether his plea for bail gains any traction or if he continues to remain behind bars while the trial proceeds.
(Inputs By Sambhav Sharma)
Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, International
