SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Del) 6635

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Prathiba M. Singh, Madhu Jain, JJ
Abdul Rashid Sheikh – Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency – Respondent
CRL.A. 672/2025|CRL.A. 419/2026|NIA Case No. 2/2018|RC No. 10/2017/NIA/DLI



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Vikhyat Oberoi, Nishita Gupta, Ravi Sharma, Shivam Prakash
For the Respondents: Akshai Malik, Ayush Agarwal, Khawar Salem

The court granted interim bail to the appellant on humanitarian grounds following the death of his father, enabling him to perform customary burial rites, subject to strict police escort and territorial restrictions to ensure compliance and security.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Interim Bail - Grant of bail on humanitarian grounds - Demise of a close family member (father) recognized as a valid ground for seeking interim release to perform funeral rites and customary ceremonies. (Para 10, 13)

(B) Conditions of Bail - Risk Mitigation - Court may impose stringent conditions to ensure the accused does not misuse liberty, including constant police escort, restricted movements to specific addresses, and prohibition on contacting witnesses. (Para 15)

Issues: Whether interim bail should be granted to the appellant following the death of his father.

Table of Content
1. background of the appeal and the application for interim bail under bnss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. prior grant of interim bail based on father's illness and subsequent modification. (Para 8 , 9)
3. request for extension of bail due to the death of the appellant's father. (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
4. grant of interim bail with strict conditions and police supervision. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)

1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present application has been filed by the Appellant - Abdul Rashid Sheikh also known as Engineer Rashid under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, inter alia, seeking interim bail on the ground of the demise of the Appellant’s father.

3. The said application has been taken up by the Board upon being mentioned by ld. Counsel for the Appellant, due to urgency of the matter.

4. The instant appeal had been filed by the Appellant assailing the order dated 24th April, 2026 (hereinafter, ‘impugned order’) passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge – 03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, Delhi in NIA Case No. 2/2018 arising out of RC No. 10/2017/NIA/DLI.

5. The Appellant is a Member of Parliament, who has been elected from the Baramulla constituency in Jammu and Kashmir in 2024. The Appellant is arrayed as Accused No. 18 in NIA Case No. 2/2018, titled, State v. Hafeez Mohd. Saeed & Ors. and the same is pending trial before the ld. Additional Sessions Judge – 03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, Delhi.

6. The Appellant had initially moved for regular bail before the Trial Court which was rejected vide order dated 21st March, 2025. The said order is under challenge in this appeal.

7. During pendency of this appeal, the Appellant filed an application seeking interim bail before the Trial Court on the ground that his father is suffering from various ailments. However, vide order dated 24th April, 2026, the interim bail of the Appellant had been rejected by the Trial Court.

8. An appeal being CRL.A.419/2026 was then preferred by the Appellant seeking interim bail and challenging the order dated 24th April, 2026. The said appeal was heard on 28th April, 20261 Order dated 25th March, 2025 in CRL. A 299/2025 titled ‘Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA’ along with the present appeal. On the said date, the Appellant’s prayer seeking interim bail on the ground of his father’s illness was also considered by the Court. After hearing the parties, the Court had granted interim bail to the Appellant in the following terms:

“14. The Court has heard the ld. Senior Counsels on behalf of the parties. The Appellant is admittedly a Member of Parliament and he has also earlier been permitted to file his nomination, campaign and also attend Parliament Session on custody parole.

15. The latest Nominal Roll of the Appellant would show that the Appellant has been in custody for more than 6 years and 8 months except the 48 days when he was out on interim bail. The Appellant was also permitted to attend Parliament Sessions on custody parole.”

16. After going through the record and considering the facts in this particular case, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for grant of interim bail for a period of one week from the date of release, subject to the following conditions.

i. The Appellant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, with a surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Link Court;

ii. The Appellant during the period of one week shall always be accompanied by at least two police officials in plain clothes. The said police officials shall accompany him from the beginning of the journey from the concerned jail till the seventh day, when he returns from Srinagar. The Jail Superintendent is free to nominate the police officials who shall accompany the Appellant.

iii. The Appellant shall only be allowed to stay where his father is located, either at his residence or at the hospital

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top