Delhi HC Reserves Order on Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh's Bail Plea
The Delhi High Court has reserved its decision on the bail plea of Baramulla MP Abdul Rashid Sheikh in an NIA terror funding case.
The Delhi High Court has reserved its decision regarding the bail application of Abdul Rashid Sheikh, the Member of Parliament from Baramulla, who remains in custody in connection with a terror funding case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA). The Division Bench, comprising Justices Prathiba M Singh and Vikas Mahajan, reached this stage after hearing extensive arguments from both the defense and the prosecution.
A Long Road in Custody
Abdul Rashid Sheikh, also known as Rashid Engineer, was arrested in August 2019. The case stems from an NIA investigation initiated in 2017, leading to charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and other relevant sections of the law. His legal team, led by Senior Advocate N Hariharan and Vikhyat Oberoi, emphasized that the MP has already spent seven years in custody.
A key point raised by the defense was the precedent of another co-accused, Shabir Ahmad Shah. The defense argued that Shah, who faces similar charges, was granted bail by the Supreme Court in March 2026, suggesting a similar consideration for Sheikh.
Defense Arguments: Duty vs. Crime
The counsel for Abdul Rashid Sheikh presented several arguments to secure his release:
- Lack of Primary Accusation: It was submitted that Sheikh was not named in the original main chargesheet but was instead included in the second supplementary chargesheet filed by the NIA.
- Democratic Faith: As an elected Member of Parliament, the defense asserted that Sheikh has demonstrated his faith in the Constitution of India.
- Political Responsibility: Regarding allegations of supporting unrest, the defense argued that his assistance to those injured during stone-pelting incidents was a duty performed in his capacity as a politician.
- Witness Integrity: The defense claimed that there was no possibility of Sheikh influencing public witnesses, as those individuals were either his official staff or supporters of his party. They further noted that all public witnesses have already been examined.
The court was also reminded that Sheikh had previously been granted bail for election campaigning, custody parole to take his oath as an MP and attend Parliament sessions, and interim bail following the death of his father.
NIA's Strong Opposition
Representing the NIA, Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra and Special Public Prosecutor Akshay Malik vehemently opposed the bail plea. The agency argued that the evidence against Sheikh is substantial and that granting bail would be inappropriate at this stage.
The NIA's objections centered on the following points:
- Anti-India Activities: The agency claimed there is sufficient material to prove that Sheikh delivered speeches against India and supported anti-India activities.
- Witness Interference: The NIA alleged that Sheikh used his periods of release to meet and influence witnesses. They specifically highlighted that two protected witnesses turned hostile and refused to testify against him.
- Pending Testimony: While the defense claimed all relevant witnesses were done, the NIA clarified that only public witnesses have been examined, and the official witnesses of the agency are yet to testify.
The NIA referred to the order on charges and the statements provided by witnesses during the trial to argue that the accused is not a fit candidate for bail. With all submissions now concluded, the court will announce its order in due course.