A Division Bench of the Supreme Court has refused to grant interim bail to Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah in a terror funding case. The Bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Nath, however, issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) seeking its response within two weeks on Shah’s plea challenging the Delhi High Court’s June 12 order denying him bail in the case.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Shah, sought interim bail, saying that the petitioner was “very sick”. No medical records which could have supported the argument for release on medical grounds were discussed. It needs to be mentioned here that all under-trial accused are provided medical care by the jail authorities where they are being kept.
Visits to hospitals and specialists, if required, are also allowed subject to completion of certain formalities and recommendations by examining doctors. However, no such case has so far been made out in the present detention.
“No interim bail,” Justice Nath said on Thursday. At the outset, the Bench issued notice on Shah’s plea challenging the high court order. “I (Shah) need interim bail,” Gonsalves said.
To this, Justice Nath observed, “You should be released today itself?”
Gonsalves then requested for early hearing on Shah’s plea. The Bench then posted the matter for hearing after two weeks.
The Delhi High Court had refused to grant him bail in the case, observing that the possibility of Shah carrying out similar unlawful activities and influencing witnesses couldn’t be ruled out. Shah was arrested by the NIA on June 4, 2019, two months before the abrogation of Article 370. At that time, the government had started arresting many secessionist and separatist leaders who used to propagate anti-India ideology in Jammu & Kashmir, particularly the Kashmir valley.
In 2017, the NIA had registered a case against 12 people on allegations of conspiracy for raising and collecting funds for causing disruption by way of pelting stones, damaging public property and conspiring to wage war against the Government of India.
Shah was alleged to have played a “substantial role” in facilitating a separatist or militant movement in Jammu and Kashmir by inciting and instigating the general public to sloganeering in support of the secession of J-K; paying tribute to the family of slain terrorists or militants by eulogising them as “martyrs”; receiving money through hawala transactions and raising funds through LoC trade, which were allegedly used to fuel subversive and militant activities in J-K.
The Delhi High Court had said the Constitution provides for a right to freedom of speech and expression, but it also places reasonable restrictions such as public order, decency, morality or incitement to an offence.
“This right cannot be misused under the garb of carrying out rallies wherein, a person uses inflammatory speeches or instigates the public to commit unlawful activities, detrimental to the interest and integrity of the country,” it had said.
It had dismissed Shah’s appeal against the trial court’s July 7, 2023, order refusing him bail. The court had also rejected Shah’s alternate prayer seeking “house arrest” given the serious nature of charges. It had noted he was the chairman of the unlawful organisation Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDPF).
The court had examined a table elaborating on the 24 pending cases against Shah, indicating his involvement in a number of criminal cases of similar nature and relating to conspiring for the secession of J&K from the Union of India. At one time, such people were treated with kid gloves and the government/s of the day made efforts to keep them in good humour. This has changed and putting them behind bars has been the consistent policy the Centre has pursued for substantial time now.
