The Supreme Court granted bail to separatist leader Shabir Shah, citing prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress. The Court stressed that delayed trials cannot justify curbing personal liberty under the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has granted bail to Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah, who has been in Jail (custody) for more than eight years in a terror funding case. The Court made it clear that if a trial is not likely to finish within a reasonable time, then keeping an accused in jail for too long can violate their fundamental right to personal liberty under the Constitution.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the order on March 12, noting that Shah is 74 years old and has already spent around eight-and-a-half years in custody. The Court observed that there is very little progress in the trial and there are no clear chances of it finishing soon.
The Court clearly stated,
“Prolonged incarceration of an accused, particularly in circumstances where the trial has made little or no substantial progress, is a relevant factor in adjudicating the matter of bail.”
It further stressed that continued detention in such cases can affect a person’s fundamental rights. Highlighting this concern, the Bench said that if the trial is delayed without justification, it may lead to the curtailment of personal liberty guaranteed under the Constitution.
While granting bail, the Court clarified,
“Without making any observations on the merits of the case and considering the fact that there are bleak chances of an early disposal of the trial, the prolonged period of custody suffered by the appellant and his advanced age, we are inclined to enlarge the appellant on bail during the pendency of the trial.”
However, the relief was not unconditional. The Supreme Court imposed strict conditions on Shah. He has been directed not to leave Delhi, surrender his passport, and use only one mobile or landline number, the details of which must be shared with authorities. He must keep his phone switched on at all times and report to the investigating officer every two weeks. The Court also barred him from tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Importantly, the Bench added,
“He shall furnish an undertaking before the trial court that he shall not commit any further offence of a similar nature while being on bail, and he shall not make any comment in the media about the present case or his role in the case.”
The Court also warned that if any of these conditions are violated, the prosecution is free to seek cancellation of his bail.
During the hearing, the Court pointed out several issues in how the trial has been conducted and took note of the long period Shah has already spent in jail. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for Shah, while senior advocate Siddharth Luthra represented the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Earlier, on September 4 last year, the Supreme Court had refused to grant interim bail and had asked the NIA to respond to Shah’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s June 12, 2025 order, which had denied him bail. The High Court had earlier expressed concern that Shah could be involved in similar activities again or might influence witnesses.
The case dates back to 2017, when the NIA registered a case against 12 individuals. They were accused of being part of a conspiracy to raise funds for disturbing peace in Jammu and Kashmir. Allegations included funding stone-pelting, damaging public property, and planning actions against the central government.
Also Read: [Money Laundering Case] Delhi Court Grants Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah
Shah was specifically accused of playing a key role in promoting separatist activities. According to the agency, he allegedly incited people to support Jammu and Kashmir’s secession, praised slain militants as “martyrs,” and received funds through hawala channels and cross-Line of Control trade. These funds were allegedly used to support unlawful and militant activities.
Despite these serious allegations, the Supreme Court’s decision highlights an important legal principle—justice delayed cannot justify indefinite detention. The judgment reinforces that the right to personal liberty remains central, even in serious criminal cases, especially when trials are delayed for years without conclusion.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Shabir Shah
