Terror Funding Case: Supreme Court To Hear UAPA Bail Plea Of Shabir Ahmad Shah On Feb 25

Earlier, Gonsalves had submitted that Shah was not named in the main chargesheet or the first supplementary chargesheet and was added only in the second supplementary chargesheet. When the Court asked about the primary allegations, Gonsalves stated that Shah had been booked for allegedly making provocative speeches and for terror funding.

He had argued that the last speech attributed to Shah dated back to 1993 and that the terror funding allegation was based on claims that one person was carrying ₹75 lakh allegedly meant for Shah. Gonsalves had pointed out that the said individual had been acquitted in the Enforcement Directorate case and that Shah himself had already been granted bail in the ED matter.

Responding to a query on custody, Gonsalves had told the court that Shah had spent a cumulative period of nearly 40 years in custody across various cases and detentions, including over six-and-a-half years in the present FIR. He had argued that Shah had repeatedly been booked on the basis of the same allegations relating to speeches, leading to prolonged incarceration.

The Bench had noted that earlier FIRs also related to provocative speeches, to which Gonsalves agreed, stating that the allegations across cases were broadly similar.

Opposing the bail plea, Luthra had submitted that Shah was arrested in the present case in 2019 while he was already in custody in the ED case. Luthra had argued that the case involved allegations of funding street protests that disrupted the administration and claimed that protected witnesses had stated that Shah recommended candidates for medical seats in Pakistan, which were reserved for Kashmiri students.

Luthra had informed the Court that 34 witnesses had been examined so far out of 248 listed witnesses, with the prosecution proposing to prune the list to around 150. He had stated that charges were framed on March 16, 2022, and asserted that there had been no delay attributable to the prosecution, with four to five witnesses being examined each month.

Gonsalves had countered that all allegations were already contained in the main chargesheet in which Shah was not named. He had denied allegations of instigating stone pelting, stating that Shah had never thrown stones or incited violence. He also submitted that Shah had engaged with several Prime Ministers over the Kashmir issue, arguing that this demonstrated that he was not a terrorist.

Gonsalves had further stated that Shah had left the All Parties Hurriyat Conference in 1996 and formed an independent group, while the allegations largely pertained to the APHC. He had argued that even providing a lawyer’s contact to an accused person had been portrayed as “legal help” to terrorists.

The bench had however, noted that findings in the order framing charges had attained finality. Gonsalves relied on judgments such as Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Vernon Gonsalves to argue that prolonged incarceration and delay in trial warranted bail, especially given Shah’s age and health condition.

When asked about the likely duration of the trial, the NIA had maintained that there was no delay on its part and that witness pruning was underway. Gonsalves had reiterated that mere words, without acts of violence or warfare, could not amount to terrorism and argued that Shah had been jailed for years for expressing uncomfortable views.

Notably, in November 2025, 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.