Delhi High Court denies bail to Kashmiri separatist leader in UAPA case

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmad Shah challenging the order passed by a National Investigation Agency (NIA) special court rejecting his bail plea [Shabir Ahmed Shah v. National Investigation Agency]..The Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Shalinder Kaur observed that the accusations against Shah prima facie appear to be true.“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 appear prima facie to be true. The Appellant has not been able to discharge the burden upon him in order to secure Bail,” the Court stated. .The NIA had registered a complaint against accused persons including Shah under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Indian Penal Code for conspiring to secede Jammu & Kashmir from India. As per the agency, they were members of various terrorist organisations and unlawful associations purportedly engaged in secessionist activities in Kashmir. Shah, head of the Jammu Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDFP), was allegedly involved in terror funding and mobilising violent protests, including stone-pelting.Abdul Rashid Sheikh and Yasin Malik are the co-accused along with Shah. .The Court observed that there is overwhelming evidence against Shah and also a likelihood of witness tampering evidence and influencing witness.“The Appellant’s involvement in a number of cases of a similar nature, thus, the possibility cannot be ruled out that being a Chairman of the unlawful organization JKDFP, 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 Court stated. .It also held that the freedom of speech cannot be misused to deliver inflammatory speeches contrary to the interests and integrity of the country. “No doubt, the Constitution of India provides for a right to freedom of speech and expression, however, the same also places reasonable restrictions such as public order, decency, morality or incitement to an offence, etc. 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.".What was also noted was that Shah had not filed bail applications in multiple other case he was accused in."What is evident is that the Appellant has multiple FIRs registered against him involving grave offences, and what remains a mystery is, if a Bail application had been filed, the result thereof, and if not, then why?"While dismissing the bail plea, the Court also rejected Shah’s request for keeping him under house arrest. .Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves with Advocate Kamran Khwaja represented Shah.Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik and Advocates Ayush Agarwal, Khawar Saleem and KP Rustom Khan represented NIA..[Read judgment]