No Interim Relief: SC Issues Notice on Terrorist Shabir Shah’s Bail Plea in Terror Funding Case

The Bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta was hearing the matter.

The High Court, in its June 12 order, had noted that “prima facie evidence indicates a role of terror funding conspiracy.”

Shah, who was arrested by the NIA in June 2019, was represented by Senior Advocate Collin Gonsalves.

Urging for urgent relief, Gonsalves submitted that Shah is “very sick” and sought interim bail along with early listing of the case.

Justice Nath, however, made it clear that no immediate release would be granted, though the Court agreed to expedite the hearing. “We can hear it earlier, but we’ll not release today itself,” the judge said, fixing the matter for two weeks.

The notice has been made returnable in two weeks.

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.

Before the High Court, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves had 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 had 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 before the High Court, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the NIA had 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 had urged the court to deny bail.

Weighing these contentions, the Court had 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 had noted that the appellant did not make out a case for bail even the ordinary principles.