The Supreme Court reviewed Shabir Ahmad Shah’s bail plea in a UAPA case alleging conspiracy to separate Jammu and Kashmir from India. The bench granted the NIA more time and fixed the next hearing for February 25 at 2 PM.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court extensively reviewed the bail petition of Shabir Ahmad Shah, who is being prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly conspiring to separate Jammu and Kashmir from India.
The Court has scheduled the next hearing for February 25 at 2 PM, allowing the National Investigation Agency (NIA) more time to present additional materials.
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta listened to detailed arguments from Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Shah, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, who appeared for the NIA.
Gonsalves previously noted that Shah was not named in the main chargesheet or the first supplementary chargesheet, being included only in the second supplementary chargesheet. When the Court inquired about the central allegations, Gonsalves mentioned that Shah faced accusations related to making provocative speeches and terror funding.
The bench recognized that previous FIRs also pertained to provocative speeches, to which Gonsalves agreed, indicating that the allegations across cases were generally similar. In opposing the bail plea, Luthra argued that Shah was arrested in 2019 while already in custody for a case involving the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
He claimed the case involved allegations of funding protests that disrupted the administration and mentioned that protected witnesses had testified that Shah recommended candidates for medical seats in Pakistan, reserved for Kashmiri students.
Luthra informed the Court that 34 witnesses had been examined out of a total of 248 listed witnesses, with plans to reduce the list to around 150. He stated that charges were framed on March 16, 2022, asserting that there had been no delays caused by the prosecution, as four to five witnesses were examined each month. In response,
Gonsalves countered that all allegations were already included in the main chargesheet that did not name Shah. He denied any involvement in instigating violence, asserting that Shah never threw stones or incited riots. Gonsalves contended that Shah had engaged with multiple Prime Ministers regarding the Kashmir issue, which he argued demonstrated that Shah was not a terrorist.
He also noted that Shah had left the All Parties Hurriyat Conference in 1996 to form an independent group, arguing that many allegations related to the APHC. He pointed out that even providing a lawyer’s contact to an accused person was being depicted as “legal help” to terrorists.
Also Read: [Money Laundering Case] Delhi Court Grants Bail to Kashmiri Separatist Leader Shabir Shah
However, the bench indicated that the findings in the order framing charges had become final. Gonsalves cited judgments such as Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb and Vernon Gonsalves to argue that prolonged incarceration and trial delays justified granting bail, especially considering Shah’s age and health.
When questioned about the anticipated duration of the trial, the NIA asserted that there were no delays on their part and that witness pruning was ongoing. Gonsalves reiterated that mere words, without accompanying acts of violence or warfare, do not constitute terrorism, arguing that Shah had been imprisoned for years for expressing contentious viewpoints.
Notably, in November 2025, the NIA informed the Court of newly introduced facts in Shah’s rejoinder affidavit. Consequently, the bench granted the NIA three weeks to respond to the rejoinder counter affidavit.
Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta referencing the often-taken stance by separatist leaders remarked to the bench,
“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