The Supreme Court of India today (September 4, 2025) issued notice to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on a bail plea filed by Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah, challenging the Delhi High Court’s denial of bail in a high-profile terror funding case. However, a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta declined to grant interim bail to Shah, citing his serious health concerns but prioritizing the gravity of the allegations. The matter has been listed for hearing after two weeks, underscoring the ongoing legal battle in one of Jammu and Kashmir’s most prominent separatist-related probes.
Case Background: Allegations of Funding Separatist Activities
Shabir Ahmed Shah, Chairman of the Jammu Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDFP), was arrested by the NIA on June 4, 2019, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The case, registered in 2017, involves 12 accused, including Shah, who are alleged to have conspired to raise and collect funds for disrupting Jammu and Kashmir through stone-pelting, public property damage, and waging war against the Indian government. Prosecutors claim Shah played a key role in the separatist movement by inciting public slogans for Kashmir’s secession, eulogizing slain militants as “martyrs,” receiving funds via hawala channels, and channeling money through Line of Control (LoC) trade to fuel subversive and militant activities.
Shah was added as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed on October 4, 2019. The Delhi High Court, in its June 12, 2025, order, rejected his bail application, observing that prima facie evidence pointed to his involvement in a terror funding conspiracy and that there was a risk of him resuming unlawful activities or influencing witnesses. The High Court also dismissed his alternative plea for house arrest, noting the sensitivity of the case and the ongoing trial, where charges have been framed but witnesses are yet to be examined.
Today’s Proceedings: Health Plea Rejected, Notice Issued
During the hearing on Shah’s Special Leave Petition (SLP(Crl) No. 13399/2025), Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, representing Shah, urged for interim bail, emphasizing that the 70-year-old leader is “very sick” and his “days of speeches are over.” Gonsalves proposed house arrest as a condition, arguing that Shah’s prolonged detention (over five years) and deteriorating health warranted immediate relief. However, Justice Nath remarked, “You should be released today itself?” in a tone indicating skepticism, and the bench refused interim bail, stating it would not order release at this stage.
The Court issued notice to the NIA, seeking its response within two weeks, and agreed to an early hearing but not immediate release. This development comes amid Shah’s multiple legal battles, including other cases under UAPA and PMLA, where he has been denied bail previously.
Legal Arguments and Context
Gonsalves contended that Shah’s name appeared only in the second supplementary chargesheet and that the prosecution relied on “old and recycled video clips” rather than fresh evidence. The NIA, in its opposition (as per High Court records), highlighted Shah’s role in unlawful associations and the potential for witness tampering. The case is part of a broader NIA crackdown on terror financing in Kashmir, with allegations linking funds to anti-India activities disguised as a “freedom movement.”
This hearing aligns with the Supreme Court’s recent scrutiny of bail in sensitive national security cases, balancing individual rights under Article 21 with public safety. Shah’s prolonged incarceration has drawn criticism from human rights groups, who argue it amounts to de facto preventive detention.
Implications for the Case and Kashmir Politics
The denial of interim bail keeps Shah in custody, prolonging a saga that has political ramifications in Jammu and Kashmir. A final decision could influence similar UAPA cases against separatist leaders, potentially setting precedents on health-based bail in terror probes. With the next hearing in two weeks, the NIA’s response will be crucial, especially as the trial progresses.
Lawcutor 