The Supreme Court questioned the NIA for repeatedly delaying Shabir Ahmed Shah’s bail hearing in the terror-funding case. The Court fixed the next date as January 7 and made it clear that no further adjournments will be allowed.
The Supreme Court on Thursday pulled up the National Investigation Agency (NIA) for again asking for an adjournment in the bail plea of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah in a terror-funding case.
The Court noted that the case has already been pending for a very long time and questioned why the agency was delaying the matter.
A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta was hearing Shah’s bail application when the NIA requested that the case be shifted to January, saying that the Solicitor General was busy with a part-heard matter in another court.
Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Shah, opposed the request strongly and told the Court that the accused was “really desperate” and needed an urgent hearing.
Justice Nath then questioned the reasons behind the repeated delay and asked the agency,
“Why January? He is seeking bail. How long has this been pending?”
He expressed clear dissatisfaction with the frequent postponements.
Although the Court finally agreed to adjourn the case to January 7, it clearly warned that no more delays would be accepted, stating that no further adjournment will be granted under any circumstances.
Earlier in November, the NIA had informed the Supreme Court that Shah’s rejoinder affidavit contained newly introduced facts. Because of this, the Bench granted the agency three weeks to file a response.
Appearing for the NIA, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, assisted by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, told the Court that the rejoinder affidavit was filed only two days earlier and included new claims that were never placed before the Jammu & Kashmir High Court.
He said,
“It talks of some confinement. I would like to verify those facts,”
and stressed that such statements needed to be carefully checked.
The Solicitor General argued that Shah’s conduct over the years reflected deep involvement in serious offences affecting national security.
He said,
“The accused had connections with Pakistan-based terrorists and was extending financial assistance to them.”
On the other side, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves claimed that several detention orders against Shah were passed illegally and that even his family was not given copies of these orders.
Justice Sandeep Mehta questioned this line of argument and remarked,
“You ask the government to provide you the details. Why ask in bail proceedings? It’s over 50 years.”
When Gonsalves explained that he was only seeking records from 1970 onwards, Justice Nath reminded him,
“That is also 55 years.”
When attempts were made to tone down Shah’s activities, Justice Mehta firmly stated,
“Pelting of stones in this State (Jammu & Kashmir) is not a very ordinary action,”
highlighting the seriousness of such actions in a sensitive region.
Supporting the agency’s argument, Solicitor General Mehta said once again that the NIA needed proper time to verify the fresh affidavit because it included new documents and claims that were never disclosed earlier.
He had also previously told the Court,
“Before the Supreme Court of India, nobody can say Indian State and Jammu and Kashmir. I am making an issue out of it,”
referring to the stand often taken by separatist leaders.
Earlier on September 24, the Supreme Court had asked the NIA to provide details of Shah’s custody in his other criminal cases, pointing out that there were about 24 pending cases against him.
On September 4, the Court had refused to grant interim bail to Shah and issued notice to the NIA to respond within two weeks to his challenge against the High Court’s order.
Shabir Shah was arrested by the NIA on June 4, 2019, in connection with a 2017 terror-funding case involving 12 accused persons who were allegedly raising funds to disturb public order and wage war against the central government.
According to the NIA, Shah played a major role in supporting a separatist or militant movement in Jammu and Kashmir. The prosecution claims that Shah, along with others, conspired to separate Jammu and Kashmir from India.
It is alleged that he used illegal hawala channels and cross-LoC trade to raise money, delivered provocative speeches to incite violence, funded stone pelters, participated in Hurriyat meetings, and glorified militants who were killed as martyrs.
The agency says these actions formed part of a bigger conspiracy to wage war against the Indian state and destabilise the region under the garb of a freedom movement.
Case Title:
Shabir Ahmed Shah v. NIA
Click Here to Read More Reports On Shabir Shah
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
