SRINAGAR: A Jammu NIA court has rejected the bail application of Hurriyat Conference member Shabir Ahmad Shah in connection with a 30-year-old case of mob violence during a terrorist’s funeral procession in Srinagar, observing that there is “a well-founded apprehension” that if released, he is likely to continue such activities “to the detriment of national security and public order”.Dismissing Shah’s application Tuesday, special judge Prem Sagar said his enlargement on bail at this stage can prejudice fair conduct of the trial and “may adversely affect the confidence and security of the protected witnesses”.An FIR was registered on July 17, 1996, following large-scale violence during a funeral procession in Srinagar. An unruly mob led by Shah, late Syed Ali Shah Geelani, late Abdul Gani Lone and other separatists carried the body of slain terrorist Hilal Ahmad Beigh towards Eidgah, raising anti-India and pro-Pakistan slogans.The mob turned violent when police attempted to regulate the procession. Instigated by the inflammatory speeches of Shah and other Hurriyat functionaries, it resorted to heavy stone-pelting and attacked the cops. According to NIA, armed terrorists also blended in with the procession and fired indiscriminately on the police personnel.In April this year, the ministry of home affairs handed over the investigation to NIA, which re-registered a case.During the bail hearing, Shah said that for 30 years, no step was taken to proceed against him. “A stale investigation resurrected without explanation … cannot justify the deprivation of personal liberty,” he said. The revival of the 1996 FIR was only aimed at preventing his release following the bail granted by the Supreme Court in March 2025 in a 2017 terror funding case, he argued. Shah was arrested in the terror funding case in June 2019.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
Besides, he argued that co-accused who were allegedly part of the very same procession had been granted bail long back.Concurring with NIA, which opposed the bail plea, the court said that “every case under UAPA has serious consequences” and has to be examined “vis-a-vis the nature of allegations, centrality of the role, protected witnesses, risk of intimidation, possibility of reactivation of networks etc”. It also rejected the grounds of parity with the other accused persons.
Leave a Reply