New Delhi [India], June 12 (ANI): The Delhi High Court has rejected the bail plea of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmad Shah, taking a serious view of the allegations against him and citing overwhelming evidence on record. The court observed that Shah faces 24 FIRs of a similar nature and that, as chairman of the Jammu Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDPF), his involvement in unlawful activities cannot be ruled out.
Shah has been in judicial custody since June 2019 in a terror funding case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2017. A division bench comprising Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed his regular bail plea and other applications.
The bench said, “Needless to state, the Charges have been framed by the learned Trial Court, and for the purpose of adjudicating the plea of Regular Bail, there are reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the Appellant (Shabir Ahmad Shah) appear prima facie to be true.” The court added that Shah had failed to discharge the burden required to secure bail.
Shah had challenged a trial court order from July 2023 denying him bail. While deciding the appeal, the High Court emphasized the substantial material against him and the risk that he could influence witnesses or tamper with evidence if released.
The court observed, “The Appellant’s involvement in many cases of a similar nature… cannot rule out the possibility that being Chairman of the unlawful organization JKDPF, he would indulge in similar unlawful activities and may attempt to tamper with evidence as well as influence witnesses who are yet to be examined.”
It said that it was premature to assess the veracity of the evidence at this stage, but the available material could not be dismissed or deemed insufficient. “The learned Trial Court shall consider such assessment at an appropriate stage of the trial,” the bench noted.
The High Court reaffirmed that at the bail stage, it is not the court’s role to test the credibility of the material, but to assess whether sufficient grounds exist. “Therefore, considering the entire gamut of facts and circumstances, the present case is not a fit case to extend the benefit of the grant of Bail to the Appellant,” the court held.
The High Court also rejected Shah’s request for house arrest, stating that given the serious allegations and the sensitivity of the case, the prayer could not be entertained.
The prosecution’s case is based on an alleged conspiracy among several accused engaged in secessionist activities in the erstwhile state of Jammu and Kashmir. These activities allegedly included organizing violent protests, inciting public unrest, stone-pelting at security forces, destruction of schools and public property, and waging war against the Indian state, all under the pretext of seeking J&K’s secession.
According to the prosecution, Shah played a significant role in supporting the separatist and militant movement by inciting people, encouraging anti-India slogans, and glorifying slain militants as martyrs.
Shah’s counsel, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, argued that the videos used by the prosecution to link Shah to the charges date back to 1996 or earlier. He stated that these same videos have been repeatedly used in 24 FIRs to keep Shah imprisoned for long durations under similar allegations of delivering inflammatory speeches and provoking violence. (ANI)
About The Author
