Terror Funding Case| SC to NIA: Bail Plea Can’t Wait; Lists Shabir Shah Matter on Jan 7, No Further Delay
Supreme Court questioned the NIA’s attempt to defer Shabir Ahmed Shah’s long-pending bail plea and fixed January 7 as the final hearing date, warning that no further adjournments would be granted
SC questioned the NIA’s request to delay Shabir Ahmed Shah’s bail plea and set a firm January 7 hearing date
The Supreme Court on Thursday questioned the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for seeking yet another adjournment in Shabir Ahmed Shah’s bail plea in a terror-funding case, noting that the matter has remained pending for an inordinately long time.
The Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing Shah’s application when the NIA asked that the case be shifted to January, citing the Solicitor General’s involvement in a part-heard matter before another court.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Shah, strongly objected and urged the court to list the matter earlier, saying the accused was “really desperate” and required an urgent hearing.
Justice Nath pressed the agency to explain the delay. “Why January? He is seeking bail. How long has this been pending?” he asked, expressing clear dissatisfaction over the repeated postponements.
The Bench eventually adjourned the hearing to January 7 but issued a firm caveat that no further adjournment will be granted under any circumstances.
Notably, in November, the NIA had told the Court that there are newly introduced facts in Shah’s rejoinder affidavit. Accordingly, the Bench had granted three weeks time to NIA to file response on the rejoinder counter affidavit.
Appearing for the NIA, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, informed the Court that the petitioner had filed a rejoinder affidavit only two days earlier, adding new claims not presented before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court. “It talks of some confinement. I would like to verify those facts,” Mehta told the Bench.
The Solicitor General highlighted that such claims needed careful scrutiny, stressing that Shah’s conduct and associations over the years showed deep involvement in activities detrimental to national security. He further submitted, “The accused had connections with Pakistan-based terrorists and was extending financial assistance to them.”
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Shah, alleged that multiple detention orders were issued unlawfully and that Shah’s family had not been provided copies of such orders. However, the bench expressed skepticism, questioning why such contentions were being raised at the stage of bail.
Justice Mehta pointedly remarked, “You ask the government to provide you the details. Why ask in bail proceedings? It’s over 50 years.” When Gonsalves replied that he sought records only from 1970 onwards, Justice Nath observed, “That is also 55 years.”
Dismissing attempts to downplay Shah’s actions, Justice Mehta reminded the defence, “Pelting of stones in this State (Jammu & Kashmir) is not a very ordinary action,” underlining the court’s view that such acts, in a sensitive region, carry serious implications.
Supporting the NIA’s stance, Solicitor General Mehta reiterated that the agency needed time to verify the newly filed affidavit, which, according to him, annexed previously undisclosed documents and claims.
Previously, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the Bench, “Before the Supreme Court of India, nobody can say Indian State and Jammu and Kashmir. I am making an issue out of it,” while referring to the stand often taken by separatist leaders.
Court had earlier, on September 24, asked the NIA to furnish details of Shah’s custody in other criminal cases, noting that there were around 24 pending cases against him.
Earlier, on September 4, the Supreme Court had refused interim bail to Shah and issued a notice to the NIA seeking its response within two weeks regarding his plea against the high court order.
Shah was arrested by the NIA on June 4, 2019, in connection with a 2017 case registered against 12 individuals for raising funds to disrupt public order and wage war against the central government. According to the agency, Shah allegedly played a “substantial role” in facilitating a separatist or militant movement in Jammu and Kashmir.
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.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. NIA
Hearing Date: December 11, 2025
Bench: Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta