Advocate Tara Narula defended Nayeem Ahmad Khan in the Delhi High Court, arguing that allegations against him were unsubstantiated. She highlighted judicial delays, claiming insufficient evidence linking Khan to terrorism or criminal activity. Narula called for review of misleading evidence from a sting operation and emphasized Khan’s recommendations for medical students as purely academic, warranting bail consideration.
![[Terror Funding Case] Delhi High Court Considers Bail Plea of Nayeem Ahmad Khan | Advocate Tara Narula Defends His Actions and Challenges Prosecution Claims](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/H.C-Delhi-4.jpg?resize=820%2C461&ssl=1)
New Delhi: Advocate Tara Narula, representing Nayeem Ahmad Khan, argued before the Delhi High Court that the allegations against her client were unsubstantiated, particularly regarding his role in recommending medical students to universities in Pakistan. Khan, arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in July 2017, faced accusations of “creating unrest” in Kashmir, including involvement in stone-pelting and burning schools. Narula strongly contested these charges during the hearing before Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur.
Narula highlighted the prolonged judicial delay, pointing out that the charges against Khan had only been framed after five years of inactivity in the trial. This extended delay, she argued, was a significant factor in determining the right to bail. Drawing on legal precedents, including the Gurvinder case, Narula acknowledged that bail is usually not granted in serious offenses. However, she emphasized that the Supreme Court had ruled that bail should be considered when it is clear that the trial will not proceed in the near future.
Narula focused on refuting the claims of the prosecution. She explained that although Khan was a senior member of an organization, there was no evidence linking him to terrorist activities. She challenged the prosecution’s assertion that Khan had participated in a pro-ISIS rally, questioning the foundation of these claims. Narula pointed out that the evidence presented by the prosecution was based solely on circumstantial claims.
One of the key points in the defense was Khan’s actions in recommending medical students to universities in Pakistan. Narula argued that this did not constitute any offense or illegal activity. She made it clear that these recommendations were purely academic and should not be misconstrued as part of any conspiracy or unlawful action.
Narula further addressed concerns over a sting operation that involved a meeting in Delhi with an individual named Nayeem. She argued that the video evidence from this operation was misleading and edited, which skewed the interpretation of the conversation. Narula noted that witnesses had stated that Khan was pro-Indian, yet the sting operation failed to explore this perspective further.
Read Also: Accused in 7/11 Mumbai Train Blasts Case Plead Innocence in Bombay High Court
Narula also emphasized the need to examine the unedited raw footage of the sting operation, as it could provide crucial context for Khan’s defense. The NIA agreed to provide the requested footage, following Narula’s request.
Advocate Narula concluded her argument by requesting that the Court take into account the incomplete prosecution transcripts and the missing footage from the sting operation. She also highlighted that the NIA had assured the court of no undue delays in the proceedings, further pushing for Khan’s release on bail.
The Delhi High Court will continue to examine the case, considering the evidence and arguments presented by both the defense and the prosecution.
Case Title: Nayeem Ahmad Khan v National Investigation Agency (CRL.A.-118/2023)
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
