Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Friday, heard a plea by OMA Salam, former PFI Chairman, seeking custody parole of 15 days to attend the ceremonies being performed after his daughter passed away last year. 

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) opposed the request, arguing that the ceremony lacked basis in Islamic tradition and stated, “They cannot invent any ceremony”, while seeking time to verify the submitted documents.

Noting the need for verification of the facts stated in the application, including the existence and nature of the religious ceremony, the court granted a short adjournment. The bench of Justice Ravinder Dudeja directed that the matter be listed at the top of the board on Monday, April 28, 2025, for further hearing.

Appearing for the petitioner, his advocate submitted that Salam sought permission to attend the ceremony at his own expense. He argued that a co-accused in the same PFI case had previously been granted similar relief. The request was presented on the grounds of parity and the religious nature of the event.

Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, representing the NIA, raised objections regarding the duration of parole. He questioned the legitimacy of the 21-day ceremony and submitted that no such ceremony existed in Islamic tradition. “Which ceremony takes 21 days? There is no ceremony known to Islam like this”, he argued before the court.

The court inquired whether the documents related to the ceremony had been verified. In response, SPP Tyagi stated that additional time was required for verification and sought an extension until Monday. He submitted that the applicants could not invent religious ceremonies and that the plea was a misuse of process.

The court further questioned the absence of the ceremony’s name in the affidavit submitted by the petitioner and asked SPP Tyagi why the documents had not been verified despite the name being mentioned.

Background: 

The government officially banned the PFI and several of its affiliated organizations on September 28, 2022, for a period of five years under the UAPA, citing their alleged connections with global terrorist groups like ISIS.

Salam had also sought to prevent the NIA from submitting a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His counsel argued that the NIA should only investigate scheduled offenses under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 and that there is a mandatory requirement for permission from the Central Government before such investigations. They further contended that the Delhi Police should have conducted the initial registration of the offense.

Justice Saurabh Banerjee agreed to the joint request from both parties to list the matter for hearing on October 31. Previously, in February, Justice Jasmeet Singh had issued a notice to the NIA, acknowledging that the State of Delhi should have registered the offense.

The Delhi High Court, in August 2024, denied interim bail to Salam, stating that no grounds were established to justify the grant of interim bail. 

Case Title: OMA SALAM VS NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (CRL.M.C.-2614/2025)