'Prima Facie Role in Terror-Funding Conspiracy': Delhi HC Rejects Terrorist Shabir Ahmed Shah's Bail

Noting that prima facie evidence indicates a role in a terror-funding conspiracy, the Delhi High Court on Thursday, 12 June, rejected Terrorist Shabir Ahmed Shah's bail plea in a case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

A division bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held, "Considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the present case is not a fit case to extend the benefit of the grant of Bail to the Appellant... There are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations appear prima facie to be true.”

Shah had filed an appeal before the High Court challenging the order of the trial court denying him bail in the case vide order dated July 7, 2023.

As per the prosecution, Shabir Shah, along with several others, conspired to separate Jammu and Kashmir from India. NIA has alleged that he secured funds through illegal hawala channels and cross-LoC trade, delivered inflammatory speeches to incite violence, funded stone pelters, participated in Hurriyat meetings, and glorified slain militants as martyrs.

The said actions, as per the prosecution, formed part of a larger conspiracy to wage war against the Indian state and destabilise the region under the garb of a freedom movement.

Appearing for Shabir Shah, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves argued that the name of the appellant appeared for the first time only in the second supplementary chargesheet, and not in the main or the first supplementary chargesheet. He contended that the prosecution has built its case largely on old and recycled video clips.

Further, Gonsalves emphasised that the speeches delivered by Shah did not incite violence and that he was not directly linked to any overt act. Therefore, he contended that Shah should be granted bail.

Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the NIA, argued that enough material was on record to support Shah’s role in a well-organised conspiracy to destabilise India through separatist violence. Emphasising the gravity of the offence and national security concerns, Luthra urged the court to deny bail.

Weighing these contentions, the Court noted, "..In the present case, the Prosecution has alleged that the Appellant is one of the key conspirators, having attended various meetings in pursuance of the Conspiracy, secured funds through hawala and other illegal channels to propagate violence in J&K, delivered inflammatory speeches, etc..... "

Rejecting Shah's argument that his speeches had been protected under Article 19(1)(a) and the Court held, "No doubt, the Constitution of India provides for a right to freedom of speech and expression, however, the same also places reasonable restrictions such as public order, decency, morality or incitement to an offence, etc. This right cannot be misused under the garb of carrying out rallies wherein a person uses inflammatory speeches or instigates the public to commit unlawful activities, detrimental to the interest and integrity of the country."

Having regard to the fact that charges have been framed by the learned Trial Court, the Court noted that the appellant did not make out a case for bail even the ordinary principles.

The Court accordingly dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency