New Delhi , September 24, 2025 : The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday directed the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to furnish details of Kashmiri separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah’s custody in other criminal cases, while hearing his plea for bail in a terror funding case.
Bench’s Direction
A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath, Sandeep Mehta and N V Anjaria observed that Shah was facing trial in “probably 24 cases.” The court directed the NIA to file a comprehensive counter affidavit within four weeks, specifically providing custody status in all pending matters.
The case will next be heard on October 31, 2025.
Background of the Case
-
Shabir Ahmed Shah, chairman of the banned Jammu and Kashmir Democratic Freedom Party (JKDFP), was arrested on June 4, 2019, in connection with a terror funding investigation.
-
In 2017, the NIA registered a case against 12 accused over allegations of conspiracy to raise and channel funds for disruptive activities in Jammu and Kashmir, including stone-pelting, damaging public property, and waging war against the Centre.
-
Shah is accused of:
-
Inciting secessionist sentiments through rallies and slogans.
-
Glorifying slain militants by calling them “martyrs.”
-
Hawala transactions & LoC trade misuse to fund separatist and militant activities.
-
Lower Court & HC Observations
-
On July 7, 2023, a trial court denied Shah bail.
-
On June 12, 2025, the Delhi High Court upheld the decision, noting that Shah’s release carried a high possibility of him re-engaging in unlawful activities and influencing witnesses.
-
The HC rejected Shah’s plea for house arrest, citing the serious nature of charges.
-
It also relied on a table detailing 24 pending criminal cases against Shah, many involving secessionist conspiracies.
The HC remarked:
“The right to freedom of speech cannot be misused for inflammatory speeches, unlawful rallies, or activities detrimental to the integrity of India.”
SC’s Earlier Stand
On September 4, 2025, the Supreme Court had already refused Shah’s plea for interim bail, but sought the NIA’s response on the larger matter.
