The bail hearing of Kashmiri separatist Shabbir Ahmed Shah was held in the Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 13). During this, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard the detailed arguments of senior lawyer Colin Gonsalves appearing on behalf of Shah and lawyer Siddharth Luthra representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Supreme Court gave 2 weeks time to NIA to file its reply on the bail plea of Shabbir Ahmed Shah. NIA had sought two weeks' time to file additional documents in the case. The next hearing of the case will be on February 10 next month.
In today's hearing, Shah's lawyer Gonsalves argued that the case is based on the same speech which has been presented before the court several times. He claimed that Shah has already spent a lot of time in custody and due to continuous FIRs being filed, he is in danger of being arrested again and again.
Opposing the plea, NIA counsel Siddharth Luthra said Shah was arrested in this case in June 2019, while he was already in custody in an Enforcement Directorate (ED) case. He alleged that Shah and others were involved in financing street protests aimed at paralyzing the administration.
Luthra further told the court that witnesses have said that Shah had recommended students for medical seats in Pakistan, where seats are reserved for Kashmiri students. He informed the bench that out of total 248 witnesses, 34 have been examined so far. He said that there are a total of 248 witnesses, we will further reduce their number. Luthra said that charges were framed on March 16, 2022, there was no delay in this. He told that we are interrogating 4-5 witnesses every month. Luthra said that we will limit the number of witnesses to a maximum of 150.
Shabbir Shah's lawyer Gonsalves said that all the allegations are already included in the main charge sheet, in which Shah is not named. Refuting the allegations of instigating stone pelting, he said that Shah never threw stones nor incited violence. He also said that Shah had talked to several prime ministers on the Kashmir issue, which proved that he was not a terrorist.
Gonsalves further said that Shah had left the All-Party Hurriyat Conference in 1996 and formed an independent group, while the allegations were primarily related to the APHC. He argued that even providing an accused person with access to a lawyer was portrayed as providing legal assistance to terrorists. He also raised questions on the slow pace of the trial, saying that in eight years only about 30 witnesses have been examined, on the basis of which Shah should be released on bail.
When asked about the likely duration of the trial, the NIA said there is no delay from its side and witnesses are being sorted out. Gonsalves reiterated that mere words without acts of violence or war cannot constitute terrorism and argued that Shah had been jailed for years for expressing uncomfortable views. After Gonsalves completed his arguments, Luthra sought two weeks' time to file additional documents on behalf of the NIA. The court scheduled the next hearing of the case on February 10 at 2 pm. Shah has challenged the order of Delhi High Court denying him bail on June 12 last year.
