New Delhi [India], June 12 : The Delhi High Court took a serious view while rejecting Kashmiri Separatist leader Shabir Ahmad Shah's bail plea. The Court said there is overwhelming evidence, and the allegations against him appear prima facie to be true.
The Court also said there are 24 FIRs against Shah of a similar nature. As JKDPF's chairman, indulgence in unlawful activities can't be ruled out.
Shabir Ahmad Shah has been in judicial custody since 2019. He was arrested in June 2019 in a terror funding case lodged by the NIA in 2017 against other Kashmiri separatists.
The division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur dismissed the regular bail and other applications moved on behalf of Shah.
The division 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 Appellant has not been able to discharge the burden upon him to secure Bail, the division bench added.
Shah had moved against the trial court order denying him bail in July 2023. The High Court also noted overwhelming evidence while deciding the appeal.
The High Court also considered that Shah is chairman of the unlawful organisation JKDPF and said he may influence the witnesses.
"Also, the Appellant's involvement in many cases of a similar nature, thus, the possibility cannot be ruled out that being a Chairman of the unlawful organization Jammu Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDPF), he would not indulge in similar unlawful activities and may attempt to tamper with evidence as well as influence witnesses who are yet to be examined."
The High Court said that, in view of the overwhelming evidence, it is premature to evaluate the veracity of the material available on record at this stage.
"However, it cannot be brushed aside or said to fall short of proof in any manner, the learned Trial Court shall consider such assessment at an appropriate stage of the trial," the High Court said in the judgement passed on June 12.
The High Court further said that it is well-settled law that at the stage of Bail, the court is concerned with the existence of the material against the accused and not whether those materials are credible or not.
"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 high court held.
The High Court also dismissed the application for the grant of house arrest. The High Court said that consequently, there is no question of entertaining the alternative prayer made by the Appellant seeking House Arrest, given the serious allegations against the Appellant and the sensitivity and gravity of the issues involved.
The Prosecution's case is premised on an alleged Conspiracy hatched among several accused persons who were purportedly engaged in secessionist activities in the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) through various terrorist activities, such as organization of violent protests, instigating the general public to commit violence, pelting of stones at the Security Forces, burning of Schools, damaging public property, etc and waging war against the Union of India. Their ultimate aim and objective were to seek the secession of J&K from the Union of India, all in the garb of 'Freedom'.
The allegations against Shah, as per the Prosecution, is that he has played a substantial role in facilitating a separatist/militant movement in the J&K by inciting and instigating the general public to chant slogans in support of the secession of the J&K, paying tribute to the family of slain terrorists/militants by eulogizing them as 'martyrs'.
Senior Counsel Colin Gonsalves for Shabir Ahmad Shah submitted that the videos recovered by the Prosecution to implicate the Appellant in the present NIA case belong to the years 1996 and prior, with the most recent being over 25 years old.
He also submitted that the same videos have been used by the Prosecution in as many as 24 FIRs against the Appellant, to keep him incarcerated for a prolonged period, based on the same allegations of delivering 'inflammatory speeches' and inciting violence in J&K, thereby creating a 'surcharged atmosphere'.