The Supreme Court heard the bail plea of Shabir Ahmad Shah, accused under the UAPA of conspiring to secede Jammu and Kashmir from India. Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard Senior Advocates Colin Gonsalves and Siddharth Luthra arguments.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court heard the bail application of Shabir Ahmad Shah, who is being prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly plotting to separate Jammu and Kashmir from India.
The Bench, consisting of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, listened to detailed arguments presented by Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves for Shah and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Gonsalves argued that Shah was not mentioned in the main chargesheet or the first supplementary chargesheet, and was only included in the second supplementary chargesheet. When the Court inquired about the primary allegations, Gonsalves stated that Shah faced accusations of making provocative speeches and involvement in terror funding.
He pointed out that the last speech attributed to Shah dates back to 1993 and that the terror funding allegation stemmed from an individual allegedly carrying Rs 75 lakh meant for him. Gonsalves noted that this individual had been acquitted in an Enforcement Directorate case and that Shah himself had already received bail in that matter.
In response to a question about Shah’s custody, Gonsalves informed the Court that Shah had spent nearly 40 years in custody across various cases, including over six and a half years for the current FIR. He argued that Shah had been repeatedly booked based on the same allegations concerning speeches, leading to prolonged detention. The Bench acknowledged that earlier FIRs also involved similar allegations, which Gonsalves confirmed.
Opposing the bail application, Luthra stated that Shah was arrested in this case in 2019 while already in custody for the ED case. He contended that the case included allegations regarding funding street protests that disrupted governance and claimed that protected witnesses indicated Shah had recommended candidates for medical seats in Pakistan reserved for Kashmiri students.
Also Read: [Money Laundering Case] Delhi Court Grants Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah
Luthra noted that out of 248 listed witnesses, 34 had been examined so far, and the prosecution aimed to reduce this number to about 150. He stated that charges were framed on March 16, 2022, asserting there had been no delay from the prosecution’s side, as four to five witnesses had been examined each month. Gonsalves countered that all allegations had already been included in the main chargesheet, which did not name Shah.
He denied any accusations of inciting violence, asserting that Shah had never engaged in violence or instigated stone pelting. He emphasized that Shah had interacted with various Prime Ministers regarding the Kashmir issue, arguing this indicated he was not a terrorist.
Gonsalves further stated that Shah had left the All Parties Hurriyat Conference in 1996 to form an independent group, while most allegations were related to the APHC. He argued that merely providing a lawyer’s contact to an accused had been misrepresented as “legal help” to terrorists. The Bench noted that the findings in the charges framing order had attained finality.
Gonsalves referred to judgments like Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Vernon Gonsalves to argue that prolonged detention and trial delays necessitated bail, especially considering Shah’s age and health. When asked about the anticipated duration of the trial, the NIA asserted that there was no delay on its part and that witness pruning was in progress.
Gonsalves reiterated that mere words, without acts of violence, should not be construed as terrorism and contended that Shah had been imprisoned for years for expressing dissenting views.
After Gonsalves concluded, Luthra requested two weeks to submit additional documents on behalf of the NIA. The Court set the case for further hearing on February 10 at 2 PM. Notably, in November 2025, the NIA had informed the Court of newly introduced facts in Shah’s rejoinder affidavit, leading the Bench to grant three weeks for the NIA to respond to this rejoinder.
During previous hearings,referring to the positions often taken by separatist leaders. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had remarked,
“Before the Supreme Court of India, nobody can say Indian State and Jammu and Kashmir. I am making an issue out of it,”
Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v. NIA
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE
