IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
NAVIN CHAWLA, SHALINDER KAUR, JJ.
Syed Ahmad Shakeel - Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency - Respondent
CRL.A. 262 of 2021 and CRL.A. 1023 of 2024
Decided on : 08-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the allegations related to funding terrorism. (Para 1 , 2 , 6) |
JUDGMENT :
SHALINDER KAUR, J.
1. The present criminal appeals arise out of NIA Case No. RC- 06/2011/NIA/DLI, which originated from FIR No. 04/2011 dated 16.01.2011, registered at the Special Cell, Delhi Police, Lodhi Colony, under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code , 1806 (‘IPC’) and Section 17 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act , 1967 (‘ UAPA ’). These appeals involve similar factual and legal issues and are, thus being adjudicated collectively through the present common judgment.
2. This case triggered from an investigation when the Special Cell of the Delhi Police received information from a source indicating that funds originating from Pakistan were being routed to Jammu & Kashmir through hawala channels operating via Delhi, for the purpose of funding terrorist and secessionist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.On basis of the same, FIR No. 04/2011 was registered.
3. Acting upon the said information, certain telephone numbers were placed under surveillance. Upon analysis of the intercepted communications and the inputs received from sources, it emerged that there was a conspiracy to raise and transfer funds to the State of Jammu and Kashmir through hawala transactions for the purpose of funding terrorist activities.
4. The investigation revealed that one Maqbool Pandit (A-5), a member of the proscribed terrorist organisation Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, based in Pakistan, was involved in transmitting substantial amounts of money to secessionist elements and terrorists operating in Jammu &Kashmir.
5. During the course of the investigation, a joint team comprising officials from the Special Cell of the Delhi Police and the Jammu & Kashmir Police laid a trap at Bemina Bypass Chowk, Srinagar, on 22.01.2011, which resulted in the apprehension of four accused persons, namely, i) Ghulam Mohd. Bhat @ Abdul Rehman (A-1), ii) Mohd. Sidiq Ganai @ Lala (A-2), iii) Ghulam Jeelani Liloo @ Salim @ Ghulam Jeelani Sofi (A-3), and iv) Farooq Ahmed Dagga @ Rahi (A-4). From the possession of the aforementioned accused persons, a total sum of Rs. 21,20,000/-, mobile phone sets, SIM cards, and other incriminating material were recovered. The investigation unearthed a deeper criminal conspiracy involving various individuals engaged in the collection and disbursement of funds to separatist leaders, members of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, and other terrorist groups. These funds, received from Pakistan through hawala channels, were meant for the promotion of terrorist activities in Jammu & Kashmir. Consequently,Sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA were also added to the aforementioned FIR No. 04/2011.
6. Thereafter, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA), Government of India, vide letter No. 1-11011/23/2011-IS-IV dated 15.04.2011, transferred the investigation to the National Investigation Agency (‘NIA’). Accordingly, the case was re-registered as RC- 06/2011/NIA/DLI (Delhi Hawala Channel Funding Terror in Jammu& Kashmir) on 25.04.2011 under Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 17 , 18, and 20 of the UAPA.
7. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the NIA filed a Charge- Sheet on 20.07.2011 against four accused persons, namely Ghulam Mohammad Bhat @ Abdul Rehman (A-1), Mohammad Sidiq Ganai @ Lala (A-2), Ghulam Jeelani Liloo @ Salim @ Ghulam Jeelani Sofi (A3), and Farooq Ahmad Dagga @ Rahi (A-4), for offences under Sections 13, 17, 18, and 20 of theUAPA .
8. A first supplementary Charge-Sheet dated 22.12.2011 was filed against the accused Mohd. Maqbool Pandit (A-5) and Aijaz Ahmad Bhat @ Aijaz Maqbool Bhat (A-6), terrorists of Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, who were absconding and have been declared proclaimed offenders.
9. On 03.03.2012, Charges were framed against the co-accused A- 1 to A-4 by the learned Special Court, NIA, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi.
10. Subsequently, on 28.05.2018, the co-accused A-2, A-3, and A-4 pleaded guilty to offences under Sections 13, 17, 18, and 20 of theUAPA , and
Prolonged incarceration without a speedy trial can warrant bail, while serious allegations under UAPA can justify denial.
The presumption of innocence prevails, and lack of substantial evidence justifies bail under UAPA despite serious charges.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the payment of extortion money does not necessarily amount to terror funding, and the court must assess the prima facie truth of the accusatio....
Bail under UAPA Section 43-D(5) denied despite over five years' custody; prima facie material including bank transactions shows direct terror funding involvement, trial progress outweighs delay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a surface analysis of probative value of evidence at the stage of examining the question of granting bail, and the requirement for rea....
(1) Bail application – Exercise of general power to grant bail under UAP Act is severely restrictive in scope – In dealing with bail applications under UAP Act, courts are merely examining if there i....
The court emphasized the importance of prima facie evidence, the right to a speedy trial, and the lack of incriminating material in the possession of the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.