Read Time: 06 minutes
The transcript provided by the NIA regarding the sting operation conducted by a television channel shows that the Journalist decided not to investigate Nayeem Khan as he was deemed Pro-Indian.
Advocate Tara Narula appearing for Nayeem Ahmad Khan, before the Delhi High Court, argued that Khan recommending medical students to Universities in Pakistan would not implicate him in the case. Khan was arrested in July 2017 by the NIA for “creating unrest” in Kashmir valley. He was allegedly involved in activities such as “pelting stones on security forces” and “systematically burning schools”.
Advocate Tara Narula, before the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, argued the prolonged delay in judicial proceedings. She highlighted that the charge against her client had been framed after an extensive period of five years, during which the trial remained at a standstill.
Advocate Narula began by addressing the legal principle derived from the Gurvinder case, which established that bail should not ordinarily be granted in cases involving serious offenses. However, she referred to a Supreme Court judgment that mandated courts to grant bail when it became evident that the trial would not commence in the near future.
Drawing on the precedent set in the Ammar Abdul Rahiman case, Advocate Narula explained that the entitlement to bail could be determined regardless of whether a charge appeal had been filed. She further clarified her client’s position, stating unequivocally that while Khan was indeed a senior member of an organization, there was no evidence linking him to any terrorist activity.
Advocate Narula refuted the prosecution’s claims regarding an alleged pro-ISIS rally, questioning the basis of their conclusion. She asserted that the evidence against her client was purely circumstantial. Furthermore, she dismissed allegations that Mr. Khan had been involved in stone-pelting or other offenses, noting that no such FIRs had been registered against him.
The advocate also addressed accusations concerning Khan's recommendations of medical students to universities in Pakistan. She argued that these actions did not constitute any offense or suggest a connection to illegal activities.
Referring to witness statements, Advocate Narula explained that a purported meeting in Delhi with an individual named Nayeem had been misrepresented in the sting operation. The video evidence, she claimed, had been edited and presented in a misleading manner.
Advocate Narula pointed out that ‘Witnesses state that Nayeem Khan is pro-Indian, therefore the journalist, purporting sting operation, did not investigate him further’. Advocate Narula meticulously read excerpts from the witness statements, asserting that the prosecution’s transcript was incomplete. A critical one-hour segment of the conversation, which allegedly involved attempts to entrap her client, had been omitted.
Concluding her argument, Advocate Narula requested access to the unedited raw footage of the sting operation, which was pivotal to her client’s defense. The advocate representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA) agreed to provide the requested footage.
Previously, the NIA had assured the court that there would not be undue delay from their side.
For Petitioner: Advocates Tara Narula, Tamanna Pankaj and Anirudh RamanathanFor NIA: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik with Advocates Ayush Agarwal, Karl P Rustom Khan, Suhail Ahmed, Khawar Saleem and Yatharth SharmaCase Title: Nayeem Ahmad Khan v National Investigation Agency (CRL.A.-118/2023)
Please Login or Register
