Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, rejected the bail application of Nayeem Ahmad Khan, who was accused in a terror funding case linked to separatist activities in Jammu and Kashmir. The bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur held, “a perusal of the statement of witnesses, including protected witnesses, present a grave picture of a larger conspiracy threatening the unity and integrity of our Nation, thus, the grant of bail to the Appellant would be detrimental to the security and safety of the public at large and the same cannot be simply ignored by this Court”.

The case stemmed from allegations that Pakistan's intelligence agencies conspired to fund terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir through banned organizations such as Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Hizb-ul-Mujahideen (HM), and Jammu and Kashmir Liberation Front (JKLF). These groups allegedly incited violence, organized strikes, and attacked security forces with the aim of promoting secession.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) conducted the investigation and examined links between these groups and the All Parties Hurriyat Conference (APHC), especially the faction led by Syed Ali Shah Geelani. Nayeem Ahmad Khan, associated with APHC(G) and Chairman of Jammu and Kashmir National Front (JKNF), was accused of plotting unrest, channeling terror funds through illegal means, and aiding militants. He was arrested in 2017 and remained in judicial custody after previous denial of bail.

Advocate Tara Narula, representing Khan, contended that the prosecution had failed to produce credible evidence connecting Khan to terrorist organizations. She argued that protected witnesses had implicated themselves and lacked corroboration, and there was no documentary proof linking Khan to illegal funding at the time of his arrest. It was further claimed that the videos and transcripts relied upon were either misrepresented, inaudible, or inadmissible, and the sting operation amounted to entrapment. It was argied that Khan had no financial ties with banned groups, had cooperated with the investigation, and had already spent over seven years in custody, thereby justifying his bail plea.

Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, appearing for the NIA, opposed the appeal and submitted that charges had already been framed against Khan under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. He relied on witness statements, sting operations, and other documentary evidence to show Khan's involvement in terror financing, pro-ISIS rallies, and coordination with Hizb-ul-Mujahideen.

The court emphasized the restrictions imposed by Sections 43D(5) and 43D(6) of the UA(P)A on granting bail. The court noted that, per the statute, an accused must not be released on bail if the court found reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were prima facie true. 

The court clarified, a detailed evaluation of the evidence was not required at this stage. The court opined that it only had to determine whether prima facie material existed. Based on the investigation, the court noted the presence of a sophisticated conspiracy aimed at carrying out terrorist and secessionist activities to detach Jammu and Kashmir from India.

The court referred to its previous order denying bail to co-accused Naval Kishore Kapoor and reiterated that in conspiracy cases, surrounding circumstances often revealed crucial evidence. The material indicated that Khan had led a pro-ISIS rally and attended Hurriyat meetings where directions were issued to organize anti-national demonstrations and raise seditious slogans. According to the court, Khan’s primary objective appeared to be the creation of unrest in the Kashmir Valley. 

After considering the documentary material and witness testimonies, the court concluded that there were sufficient grounds to believe the allegations against Khan were true. Evidence suggested that Khan, as Chairman of JKNF and a member of the Hurriyat, played a key role in a larger conspiracy. He allegedly raised funds for terrorist activities by facilitating admissions in Pakistani medical colleges in exchange for commissions.

The court, reviewing the witness statements, particularly those of Protected Witnesses, noted a serious and extensive conspiracy endangering national unity and integrity. Hence, granting bail to Khan would be detrimental to public safety and national security, and such concerns could not be ignored by the court.

“While we are aware that the right of an undertrial to a speedy trial is of paramount consideration, however, in cases involving terrorist activities which have Nation-wide implications and where there is an intention to destabilize the unity of the Union of India and to disrupt its law and order, moreso, to create terror in the minds of general public, which are also factors that weigh in, long period of incarceration would not, in itself, be ground enough to enlarge an accused on bail”, the court remarked. 

The court, while dismissing the bail application, pointed out that several protected witnesses were yet to testify and that Khan posed a genuine risk of influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.

For Accused: Advocates Tara Narula, Tamanna Pankaj and Anurudh Ramanathan
For NIA: Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra with Advocates Ayush Agarwal, Karl P Rustom Khan, Suhail Ahmed, Khawar Saleem and Yatharth Sharma
Case Title: Nayeem Ahmad Khan v NIA (2025:DHC:2472-DB)