Supreme Court Grants Bail To Kashmiri Separatist Shabir Ahmed Shah In Terror Funding Case; Notes Delay In Trial
The Supreme Court today granted bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Ahmed Shah in a terror funding case, noting that the delay ordained in the trial could not be explained.A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves for Shah and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for NIA.Shah was arrested in June 2019 and arrayed as...
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order, after hearing Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves for Shah and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra for NIA.
Shah was arrested in June 2019 and arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA on October 04, 2019. The allegations against him are that he played a key role in building a separatist movement in Jammu and Kashmir, paying tribute to the families of slain terrorists, receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LOC trade used to “fule subversive and militant activities.”
He had approached the High Court challenging a July 7, 2023 order passed by the special NIA court rejecting his bail plea, but his plea was dismissed. His plea stated that there he was not mentioned in the main and first supplementary chargesheet filed by NIA where it has been shown that the offences had allegedly occurred as a result of the conspiracy.
“Therefore, in the absence of any material/material against the appellant, the prolonged period of incarceration, the impossibility of speedy trial with 400 witnesses to be examined by the prosecution, the appellant seeks bail,” the appeal stated.
On the other hand, NIA argued that various accused persons (including Shah) conspired for raising and collecting funds for causing disruption in the Kashmir valley and to wage war against the government of India.
Headnote
Criminal Jurisprudence – Bail – Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) – Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 (PMLA) – Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Prolonged incarceration of an undertrial accused – Appeal against Delhi High Court order denying bail – Appellant in custody since June 4, 2019, with a combined incarceration of 8 ½ years in NIA and ED cases – Trial proceeding at a "snail's pace" with only 34 out of 248 witnesses examined so far – Held, prolonged detention where a trial is unlikely to conclude within a reasonable time results in undue curtailment of personal liberty under Article 21 – Stringent bail provisions in special statutes (UAPA/PMLA) cannot be used to incarcerate an accused indefinitely without trial – The rigours of such statutory provisions melt down when there is no likelihood of the trial completing in a reasonable time and the accused has undergone a substantial part of the sentence – Considering the appellant's advanced age (74 years), medical ailments, and bleak chances of early trial disposal, Supreme Court enlarged the appellant on bail subject to stringent conditions – Appeal allowed. [Relied on V. Senthil Balaji v. Deputy Director, Enforcement Directorate, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626; Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713; Paras 18-20]
Case Title: SHABIR AHMED SHAH Versus NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 305