Delhi High Court dismissed jailed MP Engineer Rashid’s appeal against framing of charges in a UAPA case, holding such orders interlocutory. Relying on a December 2025 coordinate bench ruling, court said appeals under the NIA Act were not maintainable.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal brought by Engineer Rashid, a jailed MP from Jammu and Kashmir, contesting an order that framed charges against him in a UAPA case.
The Court ruled that this was an interlocutory order, making the appeal untenable. In its decision, the court referenced a prior ruling from a coordinate bench in December 2025, which concluded that charge orders cannot be appealed under the NIA Act since they are considered interlocutory.
ALSO READ: Will Engineer Rashid Attend Winter Parliament Session?: Delhi Court Reserves Order
Factual Background of the Case:
Engineer Rashid, an elected Member of Parliament from Jammu and Kashmir’s Baramulla constituency, is facing prolonged criminal proceedings stemming from a National Investigation Agency probe into alleged terror-funding networks operating in the Kashmir Valley. The matter traces its origins to 2017, when the NIA registered RC No. 10/2017, alleging the existence of a wider conspiracy to finance and support terrorist and separatist activities in the region.
The prosecution claims that Rashid, along with other accused, played a role in actions purportedly intended to undermine the sovereignty of the country by encouraging unlawful activities, conspiring to wage war against the Government of India, and mobilising funds for terrorist purposes. Based on these allegations, the NIA invoked grave offences under the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 120B, 121, and 121A, as well as multiple provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, particularly Sections 13, 15, 17, and 18, which address unlawful acts, terrorism, terror financing, and related conspiracies.
Following the investigation, Rashid was taken into custody by the NIA in 2019 and has since remained incarcerated at Tihar Jail under judicial custody, as the prosecution continues against him.
Following completion of investigation, the trial court, by an order dated 16 March 2022, framed charges against him. A formal charge was subsequently drawn on 10 May 2022, paving the way for trial.
Aggrieved by the framing of charges, Rashid preferred an appeal before the Delhi High Court, contending that the charge order was legally unsustainable and that he deserved to be discharged. He invoked Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, which provides for appeals to the High Court from certain orders passed by Special Courts under the Act.
However, during the pendency of his appeal, a coordinate bench of the Delhi High Court, in December 2025, had authoritatively ruled in Shahid Yusuf v. NIA that an order framing charges is interlocutory in nature and therefore not appealable under Section 21 of the NIA Act. This precedent became central to the adjudication of Rashid’s appeal.
Order Of the Division Bench:
Rashid’s appeal challenged a trial court order from March 16, 2022, which framed charges under several provisions, including IPC Section 120B (criminal conspiracy), 121 (waging or attempting to wage war against the Government of India), 121A (conspiracy to commit offences under Section 121), and various sections of the UAPA related to unlawful activities and terrorist actions.
After acknowledging the coordinate bench’s prior ruling, a division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Madhu Jain stated,
“In the present appeal the challenge was to the charge order dated 16-3-2022 and the formal charge dated 10-5-2022 framed in NIA RC No. 10 of 2017. The further prayer for discharging the appellant for the said charges which have been framed. The senior counsel for the NIA has placed before the court a decision of the coordinate bench in a bunch of appeals, Criminal Appeal 199 of 2021 Shahid Yusuf v. NIA wherein it has been observed as under…”
ALSO READ: Jailed J&K MP Engineer Rashid Gets Court Nod to Attend Parliament: July 24–August 4
For context, the coordinate bench had determined in Shahid Yusuf’s case that orders framing charges are interlocutory and cannot be contested in an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act. The bench indicated that the term “order” in Section 21(1) refers to a final order rather than an interlocutory or intermediate one.
Subsequently, the bench concluded,
“In view of the…an order framing a charge would be an interlocutory order…and hence an appeal would not be maintainable. In view thereof, the present appeal would also not be maintainable and is accordingly dismissed, as being not maintainable.”
Furthermore, the bench mentioned that since the appeal itself was not maintainable on its merits, it did not address the issue of delays in filing the appeal against the charge order. Rashid has also lodged another appeal against a March 21, 2025, trial court ruling that denied him bail in a case involving charges under IPC Sections 120B, 121, 121A, and various UAPA provisions.
This matter is scheduled for hearing on February 19.
Case Title: ABDUL RASHID SHEIKH VS. NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY CRL.A. 672/2025 and CRL.A. 673/2025
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
