SUPREME COURT APPROVES BAIL FOR SHABIR AHMAD SHAH IN JKDFP TERROR FUNDING MATTER:

The Supreme Court granted bail to Shabir Ahmed Shah, a leader of the Jammu Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDFP), in a case relating to alleged terror funding under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta, which, after detailed consideration of the arguments presented by both sides, allowed Shah’s plea for bail.

Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing on behalf of Shah, advanced rejoinder submissions highlighting concerns regarding the manner and duration of his client’s detention. He contended that the State had been evasive in placing complete details of Shah’s prolonged incarceration on record. According to him, the counter-affidavit filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) failed to adequately disclose the full extent of Shah’s custody over several decades. He further submitted that the defence had limited access to detention orders, thereby restricting its ability to present a comprehensive account of Shah’s claim of having spent nearly 40 years in and out of custody. Gonsalves also emphasized the inordinate delay in the trial, pointing out that only 34 out of 248 listed witnesses had been examined over several years. He argued that such delay was not attributable to the accused and, in light of established principles under UAPA jurisprudence, constituted a strong ground for the grant of bail.

During the hearing, the Bench examined procedural aspects of the case, particularly the compliance with Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which mandates the supply of documents and statements to the accused. The Court expressed concern as to whether this requirement had been fulfilled before proceeding to the stage of discharge or framing of charges under Section 227. It indicated that if the prosecution had failed to provide all necessary materials to the defence, the delay in trial could not be attributed to the accused.

In earlier proceedings, the Court had conveyed that while there was no sympathy for individuals allegedly involved in such serious activities, the prosecution was nonetheless required to substantiate its claims with concrete evidence. The Bench had also questioned the nature of evidence presented, including the absence of call detail records in the case. It took note of photographs showing Shah with several prominent political figures and observed that such material, by itself, required proper contextual evaluation.

Gonsalves further argued that the allegations against Shah were largely based on speeches and expressions, the most recent dating back to 1993, rather than any direct involvement in violent acts. He also pointed out that Shah had been named only in a supplementary chargesheet and that a co-accused in the related case had already been acquitted.

Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, appearing for the NIA, maintained that Shah played a central role in instigating unrest and undermining administrative stability in the region. He relied on statements of protected witnesses alleging that Shah facilitated admissions for Kashmiri students in Pakistan as part of a broader separatist network. On the issue of delay, Luthra submitted that the prosecution had examined 34 witnesses and was in the process of reducing the total number of witnesses to expedite the trial, while also asserting that some delay was attributable to the accused. Considering the totality of circumstances, including the prolonged incarceration and slow pace of trial, the Supreme Court ultimately granted bail to Shah.