The Delhi High Court, on June 12, 2025, denied the bail plea of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah in a serious terror funding case. The division bench, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, upheld the trial court’s earlier order that rejected Shah’s request for release.
The court firmly held that the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression does not extend to delivering inflammatory speeches that incite people to engage in violence or activities against the nation.
“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,”
— observed the Court.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Denies Bail to Separatist Leader Shabir Shah in Terror Funding Case
The case stems from an FIR lodged by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2017, alleging a large-scale conspiracy among various separatist leaders to fuel unrest in Jammu and Kashmir. According to NIA, Shah was a central figure in the movement, receiving illegal funds through hawala networks, LoC trade frauds, and foreign channels.
The court was informed that these funds were used to organize violent protests, promote stone pelting, and finance terror-related activities. Shah was also linked to known militant leaders Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin, and hawala operator Zahoor Watali.
While arguing for bail, Senior Advocate Colin Gonsalves, appearing for Shah, contended that the evidence was outdated, lacked credibility, and didn’t show any direct connection to terrorist acts. He claimed that the speeches cited were old and already used in earlier cases where Shah wasn’t convicted.
Read Also:- Rajasthan High Court Reiterates Section 15 of Rent Control Act Is Directory, Not Mandatory
However, the court rejected this argument, noting that material collected during the investigation showed Shah’s involvement in a deep-rooted conspiracy. It emphasized that the seriousness of the charges and ongoing trial warranted continued custody.
“The Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of speech, but that right comes with reasonable restrictions. One cannot claim this freedom while promoting violence or threatening national security,”
— held the Court.
The NIA’s counsel, Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, argued that Shah, as chairman of the banned Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDFP), had organized rallies and protests with an aim to separate J&K from India. He received funds through illegal means including LoC trade and recommended students for admission in Pakistan in exchange for funding.
Evidence also showed that Shah received Rs. 1.10 crore from Pakistan to support stone pelters and further instigate public unrest.
The court stated that the question of whether videos, statements, and documents cited by NIA are admissible would be decided during the trial. But at the stage of bail, the material presented creates a strong prima facie case.
“In cases of conspiracy, it is not necessary to prove every individual act separately; the combined actions and shared goals matter,”
— the Court remarked.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Shabir Ahmed Shah v NIA (Crl A 600/2023)
