The Delhi High Court rejected the bail plea of Naval Kishor Kapoor, citing flight risk and his role in illicit terror funding. The court found prima facie evidence of his involvement in transferring foreign funds to separatist groups in Kashmir.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court, on Wednesday, rejected the bail request of Naval Kishor Kapoor, who is accused in the Kashmir Terror Funding Case.
The court, consisting of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, observed that-
“In the event of his release on bail, there is a likelihood of him fleeing from the clutches of law to evade Prosecution, given the nature and gravity of offences he is visited with.”
The Ministry of Home Affairs had earlier instructed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to probe allegations against Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and other separatist leaders. They were accused of working with militants from banned organizations to collect and transfer money through illegal channels like hawala to fund terrorism in Kashmir.
The investigation revealed a larger conspiracy involving violent activities such as stone pelting, arson, and destruction of public property.
As per NIA, Kapoor allegedly moved Rs. 5.57 Crores between 2013 and 2016 through suspicious transactions and withdrew Rs. 39.71 Lakhs after receiving an NIA summons.
Charges against him were filed under Section 17 of UAPA and 120B IPC.
Kapoor’s lawyer, Advocate Lakshay Dhamija, argued that the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) ignored Supreme Court rulings that support granting bail to undertrials facing long trials. He further stated that the NIA’s findings did not match the prosecution’s claims and that the agency failed to prove Kapoor’s involvement in any conspiracy or financial support to separatist groups.
Dhamija also pointed out that the prosecution’s claim of foreign remittances lacked independent verification of bank records. Furthermore, Kapoor, aged 71, was suffering from serious medical issues and had already spent over six years in jail.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for NIA, argued that since the charges had already been framed, the prima facie test under Section 43D(5) and (6) of the UAPA had to be applied. He emphasized that Kapoor could not be granted bail unless he disproved the allegations by cross-examining prosecution witnesses or presenting evidence in his defense.
The court acknowledged that even though Section 43D(5) of the UAPA imposed strict conditions for granting bail in terrorism-related cases, the Constitutional Court still had the power to grant bail in situations where the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution was being violated.
While the UAPA introduced special legal procedures for handling terror-related offenses, it did not override the fundamental right to a speedy trial.
The court further noted that Section 43D(5) limited judicial discretion in granting bail.
It specified that an accused should not be released if the court found reasonable grounds, based on the case diary or final report, to believe that the allegations were prima facie true.
“The person accused of offences under UA(P) Act shall not be released on bail if it appears that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the allegations against an accused are prima facie true,”
-the court observed.
It also clarified that once the charges were framed under the UAPA, the restrictions on bail became even more stringent. The twin-prong test was applied, where the first part examined whether there were enough grounds to reject bail, and the second part, the triple test, assessed:
- Whether the accused posed a flight risk,
- Whether the accused could influence witnesses, and
- Whether the accused could tamper with evidence.
In this case, the court found that-
“The Prosecution has been able to establish prima facie case that the Appellant aided and assisted the Accused No. 10 to bring foreign remittances into India for furthering secessionist and terrorist activities by the Accused No. 10 (Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali) in the Kashmir valley.”
Based on the evidence, the court concluded that there was sufficient material to show that Kapoor played a role in transferring illegal funds from fraudulent companies in the UAE to separatist groups in Kashmir. The documents collected during the investigation indicated that the allegations against Kapoor were prima facie true.
The court also considered the possibility that Kapoor might abscond to escape prosecution due to the serious nature of charges against him. Additionally, since the prosecution had not yet examined its protected witnesses, there was a risk that Kapoor could influence them or tamper with evidence. For these reasons, the court decided to dismiss his appeal.
On the same day, the court also issued a notice in co-accused Engineer Rashid’s plea, seeking permission to attend the Parliament Budget Session.
For Petitioner: Advocates Lakshay Dhamija, Mohit Gupta, and Sagar Rawat
For Respondent: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik, with Advocates Ayush Agarwal, Karl P. Rustomkhan, Udbhav Sinha, Siddhant Gupta, and Khawar Salim
Case Title:
Naval Kishore Kapoor v NIA
(2025:DHC:1604-DB)
Would You Like Assistance In Drafting A Legal Notice Or Complaint?
CLICK HERE
Click Here to Read Our Reports on CJI Sanjeev Khanna
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
