Read Time: 06 minutes
Nasir sought parole ‘on the ground that the mother-in-law of the petitioner has passed away on 21.10.2022 and Fathiha ceremony is to be performed by the petitioner’. However, the court opined this ground to be a weak one, considering that Nasir had not applied for bail when his mother-in-law passed away.
The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, adjourned a petition filed by terror accused Shahid Nasir, a member of the now-banned organization Popular Front of India, seeking custody parole to attend a ceremony for his mother-in-law who passed away 2 years ago.
The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan, recording the submission, noted that “this is not a strong case, seeking custody parole to visit a ceremony for his mother-in-law that too 2 years after she has passed”.
The NIA had filed a chargesheet against 19 members, including Nasir, for their alleged involvement in a conspiracy to wage a war to establish an Islamic Caliphate in the country.
During the hearing, Nasir's advocate argued that his client wished to obtain custody parole to pay respects to his mother-in-law, who had passed away. In response, the advocate representing the NIA contended that Nasir had not sought bail when his mother-in-law passed away two years prior.
The court observed that Nasir’s request did not constitute a strong case, as he was seeking custody parole to attend a ceremony for his mother-in-law long after her passing. The advocate for Nasir then requested the court to pass over the matter since the main arguing counsel was engaged in another court.
Subsequently, the court renotified the case for February 27, 2025.
Background:
The present case stemmed from information received by the Central Government indicating that members of the Popular Front of India (PFI) were conspiring to commit terrorist acts in various parts of India. E. Abubacker, a member of PFI's National Executive Council (NEC), was named in the FIR. Funds from PFI accounts were allegedly used in terror activities, with Abubacker as an authorized signatory for one of the accounts. The FIR accused Abubacker and others of preparing for terrorist acts, radicalizing youths, and promoting communal disharmony.
Notably on September 28, 2022, the Central Government, in the exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 declared the Popular Front of India (PFI) and the other eight alleged affiliated fronts as ‘unlawful associations’.
The National Investigation Agency (NIA) and the Enforcement Directorate (ED) had carried out massive operations, and raids in several states to track down people involved in the outfit.
Notably, the PFI chairman approached the Supreme Court seeking bail on medical grounds. A bench of Justices MM Sundresh and Rajesh Bindal, denying bail, said it was not inclined to release Abubacker at this stage after looking at the medical report.
For Petitioner: Advocates Adit S. Pujari, Shaikh Saipan, Mantika Vohra, Manvendra Singh and Mohd. Arif HussainFor Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi with Advocates Vikas Walia and JatinCase Title: Shahid Nasir v NIA (WP(crl) 5/2025)
Please Login or Register
