Naval Kishore Kapoor vs National Investigation Agency on 12 March, 2025

March 13, 2025

Delhi High Court

Naval Kishore Kapoor vs National Investigation Agency on 12 March, 2025

1. The present Appeal under Section 21(4) of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) is directed against
the Order dated 19.08.2019, passed by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge-03 (ASJ), Special Court (NIA), Patiala House
Court, New Delhi in NIA Case No. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI titled
State (NIA) vs. Hafiz Muhammad Saeed and Ors., whereby
the Appellant‟s regular bail application dated 30.09.2018 has
been rejected.

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 1 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

BRIEF FACTS:

2. It is the case of the Prosecution that the Ministry of Home
Affairs, on 30.05.2017, issued an Order no. 11011/2017-IS-IV,
in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 6(5) read with
Section 8 of the NIA Act, directing the NIA to register a
Regular Case and carry out an investigation as credible
information had been received by the Central Government that
Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, the Chief of the Jammat-ud-Dawah,
and other secessionists and separatists leaders, including various
members of the Hurriyat Conference, had been acting in
connivance with the active militants of various proscribed
terrorist organizations for raising, receiving, and collecting
funds through various illegal channels, including hawala. Their
purpose was to fund separatists and terrorist activities in the
Kashmir valley and through the funds so collected, they had
entered into a larger criminal conspiracy for causing the
disruption of peace in the Kashmir valley by way of pelting
stones at the Security Forces, systematic burning of schools,
damaging public properties, and waging war against India.

3. Accordingly, the NIA launched an investigation into the
registered case bearing no. RC-10/2017/NIA/DLI under
Sections 120B, 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) and Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 and 40 of the
Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 [UA(P) Act].

4. The Prosecution alleged that in the investigation, it

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 2 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
emerged that the secessionists had entered into a criminal
conspiracy and adopted the strategy of instigating the general
public to resort to violence and create a surcharged atmosphere
for the propagation of their secessionist agenda. They
engineered arson and other unlawful activities, which were
executed by unruly mobs and indulged in stone pelting
incidents, all of which were orchestrated by the funding
received from various organisations. The secessionists were
primarily dependant on the hawala networks and conduits for
bringing money from the offshore locations to India to fulfil and
fuel the abovesaid Anti-India activities in the Kashmir valley.

5. It has been alleged that a number of traders were engaged
in the Line of Control (LOC) trades, having relatives across the
border who were closely associated with the banned terrorist
organisations, ex-militants, and their family members who were
using proxy companies and used the LOC trade route for
smuggling of weapons etc. The investigation allegedly
established that the secessionists and separatists leaders directed
the Kashmiri traders to do an under-invoicing of the goods
which were imported through the LOC barter trade. The hawala
operators based in Srinagar, New Delhi, and other parts of the
country as well as abroad were being used to transfer the funds
so generated.

6. It is further alleged that during the investigation it
emerged that Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (accused no. 10 in the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 3 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
main Chargesheet) was one such conduit, who was receiving
foreign contributions from the Pakistan‟s establishment and
various terrorist organisations, and then further remitting the
said money to the Hurriyat leaders and secessionists. It is
alleged that during the course of the investigation, it was
ascertained that Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali had also received a
sum of Rs.2,26,87,639.31 as foreign remittances in his different
Non-Resident (External) (NRE) accounts from 2011-2016,
under the „Other Income‟ Head in his proprietorship firm which
was in the name and style of „Trison International‟, Srinagar.
He had received a sum of Rs.93,87,639.31 as foreign remittance
in his NRE account maintained with Jammu and Kashmir
(J&K) bank through an unknown source from 2011 to 2013. An
amount of Rs.14 lakhs was remitted in the account of Acharya
Sri Chander College of Medical Sciences, Jammu through
NEFT against fee deposit for his son. An amount of Rs. 60
lakhs was remitted in his current account in J&K Bank, and an
amount of Rs. 5 lakh was remitted in the account of M/s Trison
Farms and Constructions Pvt. Ltd. The Prosecution alleged that
all these foreign remittances were from unknown sources.

7. The Prosecution has alleged that during the course of the
investigation, the NIA had seized incriminating documents from
the house of Ghulam Mohd. Bhatt, Cashier-cum-Accountant of
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali. It is further alleged that the
investigation revealed that Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 4 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
other accused persons were routing the money through hawala
transactions and cash couriers from fake and bogus companies
floated in the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

8. In the course of the investigation, the NIA called upon
Naval Kishore Kapoor/Appellant, serving him with various
summons and notices under Section 160 of Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) as well as Section 43F of UA(P) Act,
for the purpose of answering certain questions related to the
investigation which, amongst other things, pertained to his
connection with Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and the purported
transactions with him. In pursuance thereof, the Appellant
appeared before the investigation agency on the concerned dates
and had also sent written replies, answering the questions put to
him in the notices received by him.

9. Subsequently, the NIA filed a Chargesheet on
18.01.2018, under Sections 120B, 121 & 121A of the IPC, and
Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, 20, 38, 39 & 40 of UA(P) Act against
the 12 accused persons (including two absconders), namely:

 Hafiz Muhammad Saeed (A-1),
 Mohd. Yusuf Shah @ Salahuddin (A-2),
 Aftab Ahmad Shah@ Shahid-ul-Islam (A-3),
 Altaf Ahmad Shah @ Fantoosh (A-4),
 Nayeem Ahmad Khan (A-5),
 Farooq Ahmad Dar @ Bitta Karate (A-6),
 Mohammad Akbar Khanday (A-7),
 Raja Mehrajuddin Kalwal (A-8),
 Bashir Ahmad Bhat @ Peer Saifullah (A-9),
 Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (A-10),
 Kamran Yusuf (A-11) and;

 Javed Ahmad Bhatt (A-12).

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 5 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

10. However, the interrogation of the Appellant continued
and he was arrested on 26.07.2018. The Appellant preferred a
bail application dated 30.09.2018 before the learned ASJ,
during the pendency of which, the NIA filed the first
Supplementary Chargesheet on 22.01.2019, arraying the
Appellant as the Accused No. 13 for the offences under Section
120B IPC and Section 17 and 21 of the UA(P) Act.

11. To put it succinctly, the case of the Prosecution against
the Appellant is that he was a part of a bigger conspiracy
whereby, he aided, assisted, and provided a cover to hold
proceeds of terrorism, which were the funds intended to be used
for terrorism and cross-border transfer, for Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali, the hawala conduit who remitted the terror funds to the
Hurriyat leaders and stone pelters in the Kashmir Valley. The
Appellant is stated to be a business partner of Zahoor Ahmad
Shah Watali in the firm „NZ International FZC‟, Dubai. The
entire business operations, nature of partnership, and
remittances received in India in the name of the said firm, has
been alleged to be merely a cover, channelling funds to the tune
of Rs. 2,24,87,639/- to Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali between
2011 to 2016. It is claimed that in furtherance of the conspiracy,
the Appellant entered into an agreement with Zahoor Ahmad
Shah Watali through his firm M/s Trison Farms and
Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for the purpose of leasing a land, for
which an amount of Rs. 5.579 crores was transferred by the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 6 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Appellant to the account of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali.

12. It is the case of the Prosecution that the accused Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali had, in his reply dated 30.10.2012 to the
Enforcement Directorate (ED), which was in response to the
notice given by ED dated 09.10.2012, declared that he owned
the following companies:

1. Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt. Ltd.

2. Trison International

3. NZ International FZC, Dubai

4. Yasir Enterprises

5. M/s 3 Y

6. Kashmir Veneer Industries

7. Trison Power Pvt. Ltd

8. Three Star Enterprises

13. As per the Prosecution, the NIA, during the investigation
of the present case, found that the firm, namely NZ
International FZC, was based in Dubai with its operations
outside India, and was a partnership concern between the
Appellant, Accused Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, and Gaurav
Kapoor; son of the Appellant. It also emerged that another firm,
namely M/s NZ Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., was also
incorporated by the accused Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali on
18.12.2014, wherein the Appellant is stated to be the Managing
Director.

14. The Prosecution claimed that there being only one
company which had operations outside India, i.e. M/s NZ
International FZC, of which Appellant is a partner, therefore,
the money received by the Accused No. 10 from abroad would

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 7 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
have been received from M/s NZ International FZC. Thus, the
Prosecution alleged that money to the tune of Rs. 2,24,87,639
was brought in India through M/s NZ International FZC, and
the Appellant, being an intrinsic part of channelization of
money by Accused No. 10, thereby acted as a cover and
participant in the entire conspiracy.

15. It is alleged that these firms/companies were merely a
front/ cover to channelize funds from outside India, and that the
Appellant and Accused No. 10 were looking for different
avenues and alibis to bring funds from offshore locations to
India.

16. It is also the case of the Prosecution that in furtherance of
the conspiracy, the Appellant had entered into an agreement
dated 07.11.2014 with M/s Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt.

Ltd., through its Director Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, for the
lease of a piece of land measuring 20 Kanals in Sozeith
Goripara Nagbal, Budgam for a consideration of Rs. 6 Crores as
a premium and an annual rent of Rs. 1,000 for 40 years. The
said agreement also declared M/s Trison Farms and
Constructions to be the absolute owner of the said piece of land,
which was to be used for commercial purposes such as for
development of resorts, hotels, restaurants, etc. Pursuant
thereto, the Appellant remitted a total sum of Rs. 5.57 Crores in
twenty two instalments between 2013 to 2016, to the Accused
No. 10.

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 8 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

17. It is the case of the Prosecution that no such land was
found in the name of M/s Trison Farms and Constructions,
and being a non-resident entity, it could not have been the
owner of the said land by virtue of Article 370 of the
Constitution of India.

18. The Prosecution alleged that the Appellant has not been
able to provide the source of money i.e. of Rs. 5.57 Crores,
which was remitted by him in furtherance of the said
agreement. Moreover, it was claimed that the said agreement
was only valid for three months from the date of its attestation,
however, the Appellant started remitting funds to Accused No.
10 even before this agreement was signed, and the remittances
continued even after the expiry of the said agreement.

19. The funds were, as claimed by the Prosecution, mobilized
by the Appellant from unknown sources and remitted to
Accused No. 10 over a period of 2 years and the agreement in
question was thus, a cover to bring foreign remittances to India
for furthering secessionist and terrorist activities in the Kashmir
valley. The Appellant has been alleged to have actively aided
and assisted in these transfer of funds.

20. The Prosecution also hinged its case on the conduct of
the Appellant, who, soon after the NIA issued summons on him
on 13.10.2017, withdrew the entire amount of Rs. 39.71 Lakhs
from his account in SBI NRI Branch, Jalandhar on 16.10.2017
and sent it to Dubai. It was claimed that this established the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 9 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
mala fide and criminal intent on the part of the Appellant.
Moreover, no explanation has been provided by him as to the
sudden requirement of withdrawal and repatriation of money to
UAE, immediately after he was directed to join the
investigation. These are the broad allegations against the
Appellant, levelled by the Prosecution.

21. Upon filing of the Supplementary Chargesheet against
the Appellant, the learned ASJ took cognizance against the
Appellant vide Order dated 06.02.2019, which was also
challenged by the Appellant in a Criminal Appeal bearing No.
615/2019 before this Court, and was dismissed vide Judgement
dated 28.05.2019.

22. Thereafter, the bail application of the Appellant came to
be dismissed by the learned ASJ on 19.08.2019. Aggrieved
thereby, the Appellant has preferred the present Appeal.

23. It may also be noted that the learned ASJ has, vide Orders
dated 16.03.2022 and 11.04.2022, ordered that the Charges be
framed against the Appellant under Section 17 of the UA(P) Act
and 120B of IPC. The Charges were formally framed on
10.05.2022, however, the Appellant was discharged for the
offence punishable under Section 21 of the UA(P) Act.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

24. Mr. Lakshay Dhamija, learned counsel for the Appellant,
submitted that the learned ASJ failed to consider catena of
recent decisions by the Supreme Court, whereby, the Supreme

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 10 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Court has emphasised the need to release the undertrials on bail
where the Prosecution fails to conclude trial for years together.
He submitted that the Appellant deserves to be enlarged on bail,
specifically when the material collected during investigation is
incongruous with the allegations made by the Prosecution.

25. To point out the deficiencies, the learned counsel
submitted that the NIA failed to establish that the Appellant was
a part of the conspiracy or knowingly aided and abetted the
flow of funds to the Accused No. 10 for channelizing the same
to the secessionists and separatists leaders/groups in the
Kashmir valley. One of the assertions against the Appellant, he
submitted, pertains to an agreement dated 07.11.2014 between
the Appellant and M/s Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt.
Ltd., through Accused No. 10, for land admeasuring 20 Kanals
in Sozeith, Goripara Nagbal, Budgam. In this respect, the
Prosecution has not been able to prima facie show that the said
agreement itself was a sham transaction or merely a cover for
the Accused No. 10 to bring in foreign remittances from
unknown sources to India. Therefore, the accusation made by
the NIA is baseless and without any material to substantiate the
same.

26. Learned counsel submitted that the Prosecution has
misplaced its reliance on the fact that since one company was
situated abroad, therefore, it can be presumed that the foreign
remittances received by Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali came from

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 11 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
NZ International FZC, which is in Dubai. It was submitted that
the Appellant could not obtain the bank statement of NZ
International FZC, as he had been arrested before he could
procure the same. Moreover, the Respondent made no
independent efforts to get the said bank statements. The
Prosecution also alleged the sources of funds transferred to be
unknown, and had invoked Section 21 of UA(P) Act, however,
the Appellant has been discharged of the same by the learned
ASJ vide Order dated 16.03.2022.

27. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that
the NIA also overlooked key documents, including an
irrevocable Power of Attorney dated 09.12.2006, executed by
the two sons of the Accused No. 10 as jointly-authorized
partners of M/s Trison Farms in favour of M/s Trison Farms
and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., and a partnership deed dated
13.12.2006. These documents show that the family members of
the Accused No. 10 are partners in M/s Trison Farms, and had
executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of M/s
Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt. Ltd., through Accused No.
10, authorizing him to act for the development of the land in
question. Based on these documents, it is evident that the
Accused No. 10, through M/s Trison Farms and Constructions
Pvt. Ltd., was duly authorized to execute transactions regarding
the land. Therefore, the accusation that no such land existed in
favour of M/s Trison Farms and Constructions is prima facie

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 12 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
false.

28. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
Supplementary Chargesheet failed to introduce any fresh
material or evidence, instead, it merely included a
reconsideration and re-appreciation of evidence, which had
already been collected at the time of filing of the main
Chargesheet. Furthermore, there was no cogent reasoning or
justification provided so as to explain why the Appellant,
initially designated as PW- 28 in the main Chargesheet, was
subsequently arraigned as an accused in the Supplementary
Chargesheet. He submitted that the learned ASJ erred in
overlooking the absence of any new incriminating material to
support the change in position of the Appellant in the
Supplementary Chargesheet.

29. The learned counsel submitted that the Supplementary
Chargesheet, even if accepted at its face value, fails to
substantiate the commission of any offence by the Appellant
under Section 17 of UA(P) Act and Section 120B of IPC. He
submitted that the alleged secessionist activities, as outlined in
the Supplementary Chargesheet, cannot be classified as terrorist
activities under Chapter IV and V of UA(P) Act. Moreover,
these alleged activities fall outside the ambit of provisions of
Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act, as the Prosecution has failed
to demonstrate any overt act or direct link connecting the
alleged actions to the defined parameters of terrorism under the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 13 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
said Act, thereby rendering the invocation of these provisions
legally unsustainable.

30. He submitted that the remittances in question were
processed through legal banking channels without any attempt
to conceal or misrepresent the origins of the funds as the
Appellant had fully disclosed the source of these funds.

31. He further submitted that in a business partnership, the
Appellant and the Accused No. 10 had entirely separate
business interests and only shared 50% expenses of the firm.
The only bank account in the name of NZ International FZC
was an Account in the Ajman Branch, UAE, which was not
operated by the Accused No. 10. The limited role of the
Accused No. 10 was taking orders in the name of NZ
International FZC and in return, made supplies to receive
commissions. Moreover, the NIA had made an error in
assuming that the business income of the Accused no. 10 was
solely from NZ International FZC. The remittances of the
Accused no. 10 were income from businesses other than the
warehouse operated by the NZ International FZC as the
warehouse only provided the Accused No. 10 with a formal
commercial establishment address to operate from.

32. The learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that the
learned ASJ also failed to take note of the fact that the Income
Tax Returns of the Accused No. 10 cannot be a ground to
establish conspiracy between the Appellant and the Accused

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 14 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
No. 10, as the said Income Tax Returns filed by Accused No.
10 with the Income Tax Authorities are his returns in his
personal name, therefore, any concealment of the finances in
the said returns is an inconsequential proof to allege a
conspiracy between the Appellant and the Accused No. 10.

33. He emphasized that M/s NZ Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd.
was established for entirely lawful and legitimate commercial
purposes. The learned counsel vehemently urged that the
allegation that the company served as a conduit for terror
financing is not supported by any evidence of actual business
transactions tied to illegal activities. The NIA has failed to
substantiate its claim with proof that the company/firm was ever
involved in any transaction where the Appellant provided funds
to the Accused No. 10 for the alleged purpose of facilitating
terrorist acts. Furthermore, the company was unable to
undertake any business activity solely because the agreement
dated 07.11.2014, upon which the company‟s operational plans
depended, did not materialize. The reciprocal obligations
outlined in the agreement, which required performance by both
the Appellant and Accused No. 10, were never fulfilled.

34. He submitted that to grant bail under Section 43D (5) of
UA(P) Act, mere prima facie opinion of the court is not
sufficient, but reasonable grounds must exist to believe the
accusations against the person accused of the offences of
terrorism punishable under Chapter IV and VI of the UA(P) Act

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 15 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
to be prima facie true. Learned counsel further submitted that
the expression „reasonable grounds‟ means “substantial
probable cause” and more than a prima facie case and entire
evidence on record including material produced by the accused
must be considered by the Court while deciding the bail
application. In support of these contentions, reliance was placed
on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India vs
Ratan Mallik alias Habul, (2009) 2 SCC 624, Cheena
Boyanna Krishna Yadav vs State of Maharashtra & Anr.,
(2007) 1 SCC 242, Union of India vs Shiv Shankar Kesari,
(2007) 7 SCC 798, Sudesh Kedia vs Union of India, (2021) 4
SCC 704 and NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, (2019) 5
SCC 1.

35. Learned counsel further submitted that the standard of
scrutiny to determine prima facie correctness of accusations
levelled against an accused while considering bail under Section
43D (5), is much higher than at the stage of framing of Charges,
and while doing so, the documents which are legally admissible
under Section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872 can be relied upon
at the stage of consideration of bail. Moreover, he submitted, at
the time of taking cognizance, the Court has to consider only
the averments made in the Chargesheet. Reliance for which was
placed on the decisions in Rojen Boro vs NIA, (2016) 4 GLT
803, Central Bureau of Investigation vs V.C. Shukla, (1998) 3
SCC 410, Manohar Lal Sharma vs Union of India &Ors,.

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 16 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

(2017) 11 SCC 731, Rashmi Kumar vs Mahesh Kumar Bhada,
(1997) 2 SCC 397, State of Bihar vs Rajendra Agrawalla,
(1996) 8 SCC 164 and Gurwinder Singh vs State of Punjab
and Ors., 2024 INSC 92.

36. He submitted that the learned ASJ wrongly relied on
Naval Kishore v NIA, (2019) SCC OnLine Del 8711, wherein it
was specifically stated that the observations made were only for
the purpose of grounds urged with respect to the cognizance
taken by the learned Trial Court and not an expression on merits
of the matter before the learned Trial Court.

37. He further submitted that the learned ASJ erred by failing
to appreciate that the judicial custody of the Appellant was
unwarranted, as the Respondent has not alleged that the
Appellant poses a flight risk or that he would tamper with the
evidence, particularly when the evidence is documentary in
nature and already in the possession of the Prosecution. None of
the witnesses are known to the Appellant, therefore, there is no
risk that he would influence the witnesses or tamper with
evidence. Furthermore, the Appellant has demonstrated good
faith by participating in the investigation on 26 separate
occasions. Learned counsel also strenuously argued that the
Appellant also has a house in Jalandhar, Punjab and can stay in
India, and as such does not pose a flight risk.

38. He further submitted that the Appellant has severe
medical conditions, including hypertension, diabetes, and a

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 17 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
history of paralytic attacks and these conditions had also
necessitated his hospitalization at Dr. RML Hospital, New
Delhi, during both the police and judicial custody on multiple
occasions. Moreover, the Appellant is 71 years of age and has
already endured over six and a half years of the incarceration.
The learned counsel highlighted that keeping in view that no list
has been furnished by the Prosecution as to how many
witnesses remain to be examined, as some 226 witnesses are yet
to be examined even after dropping certain number of
witnesses, and with only 21-22 witnesses having been
examined, there is not a remotest possibility of the trial
concluding in the near future. In these circumstances, he
submitted, the Bail be granted to the Appellant, who is ready to
abide by any conditions imposed on him by this Court while
granting him regular bail.

39. The learned counsel has relied on the following
judgements in support of his contentions:

 Jahir Hak vs The State of Rajasthan (2022) SCC Online SC 441
 Ashim vs National Investigation Agency (2022) 1 SCC 695
 Shoma Kanti Sen vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (2024)
SCC OnLine SC 498
 V. Senthil Balaji vs The Deputy Director, Directorate of
Enforcement 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2626.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT

40. Controverting the submissions made on behalf of the
Appellant, the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, Mr.
Siddharth Luthra, at the outset, submitted that once the Charges
have been framed, the test laid down in the Section 43D(5) and

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 18 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
(6) of the UA(P) Act is to be applied in the context of the
allegations being prima facie true against the Appellant. The
bail, under such circumstances, cannot be granted unless the
Appellant is able to discharge the onus under Section 43D
during the course of the trial by way of cross-examining
Prosecution witnesses or by leading defence evidence. Charges
have been framed against the Appellant for the offences
punishable under Sections 120B of IPC and 17 of UA(P) Act.
Keeping in view that Section 43D (5) & (6) are attracted, and
since the order on Charge remains unchallenged by the
Appellant, in such circumstances, the Appellant is not entitled
to bail.

41. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Appellant
was intrinsically linked to the Accused No. 10 and has actively
participated in the conspiracy with him, whose order of Regular
bail was set aside by the Supreme Court vide Order dated
02.04.2019 in the case of NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
(supra). He contended that the said judgment discusses the
incriminating material against the Accused No. 10, which also
implicates the Appellant. Considering the said fact alone, there
is no basis to grant bail to the Appellant at this stage.

42. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the accused
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, during the FEMA proceedings,
had disclosed about the companies owned by him, of which NZ
International FZC was stated to be situated abroad, being in

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 19 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Dubai. It was also declared by him that the foreign remittances
received by him from Dubai were from NZ International FZC.
In this regard, he referred to Exhibit D137(f).

43. He submitted that the evidence on record reflects the
close business relations between the Appellant and the Accused
No. 10. The record reveals that the Appellant was a director in
NZ Farms & Construction Pvt. Ltd. and a licensee in NZ
International-FZC along with the Accused No. 10. Reference
was made to the documents D212, D218, D203, D224/10 and
other documents.

44. He further submitted that according to the Financial
Analysis Report dated 12.12.2018, [AD-86], various companies
of the Accused No. 10 (including those in which the Appellant
was a director) were mere fronts and no actual business was
being carried out. The Order on Charge dated 16.03.2022
records the discrepancies noted by this Court vide Order dated
28.05.2019 in Appeal against the Order of Cognizance with
respect to the purported agreement dated 07.11.2014 between
the Appellant and M/s Trison Farms and Construction Pvt. Ltd.
The same was verified by perusing the land records furnished
by the Tehsildar in the documents AD-3 & AD-4 as well as the
purported agreement.

45. Learned Senior Counsel relied on three factors to
establish that the purported agreement was merely a front to
transfer unaccounted funds from unknown sources in Dubai into

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 20 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
the accounts of the Accused No. 10, to be used for promoting
secessionist and terrorist activities in Kashmir valley. First, the
agreement falsely states that M/s Trison Farms & Constructions
Pvt. Ltd. was the absolute owner of the alleged property leased
to the Appellant, which could not have been the case as the land
records reflect that some of the properties of the agreement in
question, were either mortgaged to the J&K Bank or were
mutated in the name of the Accused No. 10, pursuant to the Gift
Deeds dated 01.01.2015 and 11.09.2015, which deeds were
executed much after the date of the agreement. Therefore, M/s
Trison Farms & Constructions Pvt. Ltd. could not have been the
absolute owner of the properties so leased..

46. Secondly, learned Senior Counsel submitted, the
agreement was notarized in the name of Ghulam Mohd., who
was neither a party to the agreement nor had any relation to the
subject-matter of the transaction. Thirdly, the land was
agricultural, however, the agreement entered into was for
commercial purposes; of establishing, promoting and running
the business of Hotels and Businesses. Moreover, there was no
conversion of land either before entering the agreement dated
07.11.2014 and even till date. Despite the agreement pertaining
to the year 2014 and the Chargesheet having been filed in 2017,
not even an application for change of use of land had been made
or any activity in furtherance of the same has been undertaken.
Without change of title, he submitted, the land could not have

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 21 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
been leased for commercial purposes.

47. He contended that the Appellant was not able to show the
source of funds since he is neither an income tax payee nor has
he shown any source of money so transmitted by him to the
Accused No. 10. Furthermore, learned Senior Counsel, while
referring to Exhibit D212, that is, production cum receipt memo
dated 17.11.2017 pertaining to vouchers of purchase of gold by
the Appellant, submitted that the Appellant did not produce any
stock register, inventory or any document including the source
of funds for the purchase of gold, which he has claimed to be
purchased/sold by the Appellant to generate the said funds
between the years 2013-14. He further submitted that the
amount transferred on the pretext of consideration of the
purported agreement was more valuable than the gold claimed
to be sold for completing the transaction of purchase of land.
The purchase value of gold was estimated to be roughly Rs. 3.3
Crores, yet no source has been provided for the remaining 2.2
Crores (approx.). The Appellant has also not been able to
explain the source of money that was utilized to purchase the
gold.

48. The learned Senior Counsel drew our attention to the
Document AD-87, which is the Production cum Receipt Memo
dated 09.11.2018, to contend that the conduct of the Appellant
is to be noted, who after the issuance of summons/notice to him,
withdrew the entire amount from his account in SBI NRI

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 22 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Branch, Jalandhar and sent outward remittances to Dubai,
which establishes malafide intention and he has not been able to
explain the sudden requirement of withdrawal of the same.

49. It was also contended that the Appellant has claimed that
the money was sent to the Accused No. 10 in anticipation of an
agreement for lease, however, it was submitted by the learned
Senior Counsel that such a large amount of money, without
execution of any lease, could not have been sent merely in
anticipation.

50. Learned Senior Counsel, drawing our attention to the
Order dated 09.10.2019 passed by the Adjudicating Authority,
PMLA, submitted that there was a deep rooted conspiracy and
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali was involved in money laundering
and his properties are covered under the proceeds of crime.

51. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that the sheet of paper
[D-132(a)/23] seized from the house of the accountant of the
Accused No. 10, Mr. Ghulam Mohd. Bhatt prima facie revealed
the foreign contributions received and expenditures made by the
Accused No. 10 between the years 2015-2016. The said entries
revealed that the Accused No. 10 not only received but also
transferred certain amounts to other co-accused persons,
including Yasin Malik (who pled guilty and has been sentenced
by the learned ASJ), Shabir Shah (Accused No. 16) and Hafiz
Saeed (Accused No. 1) and most importantly, Iqbal Cheema,
the First Secretary of the High Commission of Pakistan on

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 23 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
20.10.2016, which was verified through document that is AD-

10. Furthermore, when the same document had come up for
consideration before the Supreme Court in NIA vs. Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali (supra), the Supreme Court found force in
the argument of the learned Attorney General that the issue of
admissibility and credibility of the material and evidence
presented by the investigating agency would be a matter of trial.

52. Thus, he submitted, in view of the foregoing, the
ingredients of Section 17 UA(P) Act & 120B of the IPC are
prima facie made out against the Appellant. The Appellant has
not been able to show from the evidences collected by NIA that
no case against him has been made out. The Appeal, being
meritless, therefore, needs to be dismissed.
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

53. We have considered the submissions advanced on behalf
of the Appellant and by the learned Senior Counsel appearing
on behalf of the Respondent. With their assistance, we have
perused the copies of the Chargesheet, the statement of the
protected witnesses, as well as the record. Apart from the
above, we have also perused the judgements relied upon by
both the sides in support of their contentions.

54. To start with, we may note that the learned counsel for
the Appellant has primarily submitted that the stringent bail
conditions under Section 43D (5) of the UA(P) Act could be
justified only if a swift trial takes place, however, in the present

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 24 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
case, the Appellant has been languishing in jail since the date of
his arrest, being 26.07.2018, and there is no certainty as to when
the trial shall be concluded in the future. He submitted that
even otherwise, the restrictions as provided under Section 43D
(5) of UA(P) Act per se do not oust the powers of the
Constitutional Court to grant bail on the ground of violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the rigors of the
provision do not apply when the personal liberty of an
undertrial is at stake. In support thereof, the learned counsel
placed reliance on the following judgments:

 The National Investigation Agency vs Areeb Ejaz Majeed, 2021
SCC OnLine BOM 239
 The National Investigation Agency vs Areeb Ajaz Majeed
SLP(Crl) No. 6166/2021, Order dated 27.08.2021
 Union of India vs K.A. Najeeb (2021) SCC Online SC 50;
 Javed Gulam Nabi Sheikh vs State of Maharashtra &Ors. (2024)
9 SCC 813;

 Sheikh Javed Iqbal vs State of Uttar Pradesh, (2024 INSC 534)
(2024) 8 SCC 293;

 Manish Sisodia vs Directorate of Enforcement, (2023) SCC
OnLine Del 3770;

 Arvind Kejriwal vs Central Bureau of Investigation, (2024) SCC
OnLine SC 2550

55. In response, Mr. Siddharth Luthra submitted that the
Prosecution has relied upon 242 witnesses in total, out of which
the Prosecution will drop 92 witnesses and 21-22 witnesses
have already been examined, thus, the trial is underway. He,
therefore, submitted that the restrictions under the Statute as
well as powers exercisable under Constitutional jurisdiction,
can be well harmonised in the present case, as it is not a case of

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 25 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
delay in launching the Prosecution‟s case and leading with the
trial of the Appellant.

56. The learned Senior Counsel in reference to the aforesaid
submission, drew our attention to the two affidavits dated
15.10.2022 and 06.11.2024 filed on behalf of the Respondent,
and submitted that in the said affidavits, the entire track record
of the Prosecution‟s case vis-a-vis filing of the Chargesheet,
framing of Charge and examination of Prosecution witnesses
are set out in detail, from where it can be verified that the trial
has been fast tracked and is being taken up at very short dates of
hearings. Therefore, there is no merit in the argument raised on
behalf of the Appellant that he be enlarged on bail, merely due
to his incarceration, which infringes his valuable right under
Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

57. While placing reliance on the case of Gurwinder Singh
(supra), he vehemently submitted that the facts and
circumstances in the present case are akin to the case of
Gurwinder Singh (supra), as in that case, the bail was rejected
in view of facts and circumstances of the case and the trial was
on going and 22 Prosecution witnesses had been examined. He
further submitted that the other judgments cited on behalf of the
Appellant are not only distinguishable on the facts from the
present case, but also in some of the cases, even the Charges
were yet to be framed at the time of hearing of the bail
applications.

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 26 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

58. He submitted that the facts in the present case are
peculiar which, therefore, need to be considered on their own
merits. He also submitted that the Appellant has unsuccessfully
challenged the Order passed by the learned ASJ taking
cognizance in the present case, however, he has not assailed the
Order of framing of Charge under Section 17 of UA(P) Act and
120-B of IPC against him. Thus, he submitted, the parameters
under Section 43D(5) of the UA(P) Act have to be met in the
present case for consideration of the Appellant‟s plea for bail,
especially, the rigours being higher when the Charges have
already been framed.

59. To appreciate the aforesaid plea of the parties, it would
be apposite to deal with Section 43D of UA(P) Act. UA(P) Act
provides special procedure to deal with terrorists activities, and
the Section 43D lays down stringent provision for grant of bail.
For ready reference, it would be appropriate to reproduce the
relevant portion of Section 43D of the UA(P) Act, is as under:

“[43D. Modified application of certain
provisions of the Code
xxxx xxxx xxxx
(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code, no person accused of an offence
punishable under Chapters IV and VI of this
Act shall, if in custody, be released on bail or
on his own bond unless the Public Prosecutor
has been given an opportunity of being heard
on the application for such release:

Provided that such accused person
shall not be released on bail or on his own
bond if the Court, on a perusal of the case
diary or the report made under section 173 of

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 27 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
the Code is of the opinion that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the
accusation against such person is prima facie
true.

(6) The restrictions on granting of bail
specified in subsection (5) is in addition to the
restrictions under the Code or any other law
for the time being in force on granting of bail.

(Emphasis Supplied)

60. What flows from the provisions so extracted above is that
the same sets a narrow limit for the court‟s discretion to grant
bail. The proviso provides that the accused shall „not‟ be
released on bail if the Court is of the opinion that there are
reasonable grounds, upon perusal of the case diary or the final
report submitted by the investigation agency, to believe that the
allegations against the accused are prima facie true.

61. In this regard, we may refer to various decisions wherein
the provision under Section 43D has been examined by the
Supreme Court as well as Coordinate Benches of this Court.
Recently, the Supreme Court in the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal
(supra), culled out the principles for grant of bail and observed
that the under trial has a fundamental right to a speedy trial
which is traceable to Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Further, the Supreme Court, while referring to Javed Gulam
Nabi Sheikh (supra) and other of its earlier decisions, observed
as under:

“42. This Court has, time and again,
emphasised that right to life and personal
liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India is overarching and

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 28 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
sacrosanct. A constitutional court cannot be
restrained from granting bail to an accused on
account of restrictive statutory provisions in a
penal statute if it finds that the right of the
accused-undertrial under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India has been infringed. In that
event, such statutory restrictions would not
come in the way. Even in the case of
interpretation of a penal statute, howsoever
stringent it may be, a constitutional court has to
lean in favour of constitutionalism and the rule
of law of which liberty is an intrinsic part.”

62. It was also observed by the Supreme Court as under:

“42. (continued) In the given facts of a
particular case, a constitutional court may
decline to grant bail. But it would be very
wrong to say that under a particular statute,
bail cannot be granted. It would run counter to
the very grain of our constitutional
jurisprudence. In any view of the matter, K.A.
Najeeb¹ being rendered by a three-Judge Bench
is binding on a Bench of two Judges like us.”

(Emphasis supplied)

63. It further observed:

“23. It is true that the Appellant is facing
charges under Section 489B IPC and under
Section 16 of the UAP Act which carries a
maximum sentence of life imprisonment, if
convicted. On the other hand, the maximum
sentence under Section 489C IPC is 7 years.
But as noticed above, the trial is proceeding at
a snail’s pace. As per the impugned order, only
two witnesses have been examined. Thus, it is
evident that the trial would not be concluded in
the near future.”

(Emphasis supplied)

64. Notably, in another decision of the Supreme Court in
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra), which arose from the
same Registered Case by NIA as the present matter, the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 29 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Supreme Court propounded the general factors on the anvil of
which the bail applications are to be considered:

“21. Before the rival submissions, it is apposite to restate the
settled legal position about matters to be considered for
deciding an application for bail, to wit:

(i) whether there is any prima facie or reasonable ground
to believe that the accused had committed the offence,

(ii) the nature of gravity of the charge,

(iii) the severity of the punishment in event of conviction,

(iv) the danger of accused absconding, or fleeing if
released on bail

(v) character, behaviour, means, position and standing of
accused

(vi) likelihood of offence being repeated

(vii) reasonable apprehension of witness being tampered
with and

(viii) danger of course of justice being thwarted by grant of
bail (State of U.P. v. Amarmani Tripathi)”

65. Further, the Supreme Court in Gurwinder Singh (supra)
has discussed the decision in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali
(supra) in detail and has laid down the parameters by which bail
applications under Section 43D(5) of UA(P) Act are to be
adjudged. The accused in the said case had preferred an Appeal
to the High Court of Punjab & Haryana to assail the decision of
his bail application by the Trial Court, The High Court
considering the seriousness of the offences and considering that
the protected witnesses were yet to be examined, as in the
present case, rejected the bail application of the accused. The
Supreme Court while affirming the decision of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court, apart from other factors, also discussed
the scope of Section 43D(5) of UA(P) Act and observed as
under:-

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 30 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

27. The Courts are, therefore, burdened with a sensitive
task on hand. In dealing with bail applications under UAP
Act, the Courts are merely examining if there is
justification to reject bail. The „justifications‟ must be
searched from the case diary and the final report
submitted before the Special Court. The legislature has
prescribed a low, „prima facie‟ standard, as a measure of
the degree of satisfaction, to be recorded by Court when
scrutinising the justifications [materials on record]. This
standard can be contrasted with the standard of „strong
suspicion‟, which is used by Courts while hearing
applications for „discharge‟. In fact, the Supreme Court in
Zahoor Ahmad Watali has noticed this difference, where it
said: (SCC p.24 para 23)
“23….In any case, the degree of satisfaction to be
recorded by the Court for opining that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation
against the accused is prima facie true, is lighter
than the degree of satisfaction to be recorded for
considering a discharge application or framing of
charges in relation to offences under the 1967 Act.”

66. Noting the elaborate guidelines laid down by it in Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali (supra), the Supreme Court in Gurwinder
Singh (supra) expounded the following propositions and as also
a twin-prong test, relevant extracts whereof are reproduced as
under:

“29. On a textual reading of Section 43 D(5) UAP
Act, the inquiry that a bail Court must undertake while
deciding bail applications under the UAP Act can be
summarised in the form of a twin-prong test:

(1) Whether the test for rejection of the bail is
satisfied?

1.1 Examine if, prima facie, the alleged
“accusations” make out an offence under Chapter IV
or VI of the UAP Act
1.2 Such examination should be limited to case diary
and final report submitted under Section 173 CrPC;
(2) Whether the accused deserves to be enlarged on
bail in light of the general principles relating to grant

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 31 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
of bail under Section 439 CrPC (”tripod test”)? On a
consideration of various factors such as nature of
offence, length of punishment (if convicted), age,
character, status of accused etc., the Courts must ask
itself:

2.1 Whether the accused is a flight risk?

2.2 Whether there is apprehension of the accused
tampering with the evidence?

2.3 Whether there is apprehension of accused
influencing witnesses?

30. The question of entering the „„second test‟‟ of the
inquiry will not arise if the „„first test‟‟ is satisfied. And
merely because the first test is satisfied, that does not
mean however that the accused is automatically
entitled to bail. The accused will have to show that he
successfully passes the „„tripod test‟‟.”

Test for Rejection of Bail : Guidelines as laid down by
Supreme Court in Watali’s Case

31. In the previous section, based on a textual reading,
we have discussed the broad inquiry which Courts
seized of bail applications under Section 43D(5) UAP
Act r/w Section 439 CrPC must indulge in. Setting out
the framework of the law seems rather easy, yet the
application of it, presents its own complexities. For
greater clarity in the application of the test set out
above, it would be helpful to seek guidance from
binding precedents.

32. In this regard, we need to look no further than
Watali‘s case which has laid down elaborate guidelines
on the approach that courts must partake in, in their
application of the bail limitations under the UAP Act.
On a perusal of paragraphs 23 to 24 and 26-27, the
following 8-point propositions emerge and they are
summarised as follows:

32.1 Meaning of ”Prima facie true”: (Watali case,
SCC p.24, para 23):

“23……On the face of it, the materials must show the
complicity of the accused in commission of the
offence. The materials/evidence must be good and
sufficient to establish a given fact or chain of facts
constituting the stated offence, unless rebutted or
contradicted by other evidence.”

32.2 Degree of satisfaction at pre-chargesheet, post
chargesheet and post-charges compared: (Watali

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 32 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
case, SCC p.28, para 26):

“26….. Once charges are framed, it would be safe to
assume that a very strong suspicion was founded upon
the materials before the Court, which prompted the
Court to form a presumptive opinion as to the
existence of the factual ingredients constituting the
offence alleged against the accused, to justify the
framing of charge. In that situation, the accused may
have to undertake an arduous task to satisfy the Court
that despite the framing of charge, the materials
presented along with the charge-sheet (report under
Section 173 CrPC), do not make out reasonable
grounds for believing that the accusation against him
is prima facie true. Similar opinion is required to be
formed by the Court whilst considering the prayer for
bail, made after filing of the first report made under
Section 173 of the Code, as in the present case.”

32.3 Reasoning, necessary but no detailed evaluation
of evidence: Watali case, SCC p.27 para 24:

“24……The exercise to be undertaken by the Court at
this stage–of giving reasons for grant or non-grant of
bail–is markedly different from discussing merits or
demerits of the evidence. The elaborate examination
or dissection of the evidence is not required to be
done at this stage.”

32.4 Record a finding on broad probabilities, not
based on proof beyond doubt: Watali case, SCC p.27
para 24:

“24…. The Court is merely expected to record a
finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding
the involvement of the accused in the commission of
the stated offence or otherwise.”

32.5 Duration of the limitation under Section
43D(5): Watali case, SCC p.27 para 26:

“26…. The special provision, Section 43-D of the
1967 Act, applies right from the stage of registration
of FIR for the offences under Chapters IV and VI of
the 1967 Act until the conclusion of the trial thereof.”

32.6 Material on record must be analysed as a
‘whole’; no piecemeal analysis: Watali case, SCC
p.28 para 27:

“27….. The totality of the material gathered by the
investigating agency and presented along with the
report and including the case diary, is required to be

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 33 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
reckoned and not by analysing individual pieces of
evidence or circumstance.”

32.7 Contents of documents to be presumed as true:

Watali case, SCC p.28 para 27:

“27…… The Court must look at the contents of the
document and take such document into account as it
is.”

32.8 Admissibility of documents relied upon by
Prosecution cannot be questioned: Watali case, SCC
p.24 & 28 paras 23 & 27:

“23…… The materials/evidence collected by the
investigation agency in support of the accusation
against the accused in the first information report
must prevail until contradicted and overcome or
disproved by other evidence.

27…… In any case, the question of discarding the
document at this stage, on the ground of being
inadmissible in evidence, is not permissible.”

67. It would also be apposite to note that a Review Petition
against the judgement in Gurwinder Singh (supra) was
preferred, and the Supreme Court in its Order dated 16.07.2024
in (2024) SCC OnLine SC 177 observed that their decision is
based on the facts and circumstances as unfolded. The
observations read as under:

“1) This Review Petition has been filed seeking
to review Judgment dated 07.02.2024 both on
facts and law. As facts have been duly taken
note of, we do not find any reason to interfere
with the Judgment passed. On the question of
law, reliance has been placed on the decisions
of this Court in KA Najeeb v. Union of India,
(2021) 3 SCC 713 and Vernon v. State of
Maharashtra, (2023) SCC OnLine SC 885. We
make it clear that our decision is to be
construed on the facts dealt with by us.

2) Accordingly, the Review Petition stands
dismissed.”

(emphasis supplied)

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 34 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

68. In the case of Sheikh Javed Iqbal (supra), the Supreme
Court had granted bail to the accused and had distinguished
Gurwinder Singh (supra). The Court, during the course of the
proceedings had also enquired from the parties as to the total
number of witnesses and witnesses that remain to be examined.
The relevant observations thereto are as below:

“18. As per the impugned order, evidence of
only two witnesses have been recorded. In the
course of hearing, the Bench had queried
learned counsel for the parties as to the stage of
the trial; how many witnesses the Prosecution
seeks to examine and evidence of the number of
witnesses recorded so far. Unfortunately,
counsel for either side could not apprise the
Court about the aforesaid. On the contrary, the
learned state counsel sought for time to obtain
instructions.”

69. It further held as under:

“…but in Gurwinder Singh, the trial was
already underway and that twenty two witnesses
including the protected witnesses have been
examined. It was in that context, the two Judge
Bench of this Court in Gurwinder Singh
observed that mere delay in trial pertaining to
grave offences cannot be used as a ground to
grant bail.”

70. In the case of Sudesh Kedia (supra), the Supreme Court,
while considering the grant of bail under Section 43-D(5) of the
UA(P) Act, stated that the Court must examine the entire
material on record for the purpose of satisfying itself whether a
prima facie case is made out against the accused or not. In
Rojen Boro (supra), it was outlined that the Court shall examine
the facts and circumstances of each case while granting bail.

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 35 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

71. In this background, the position of law stands re-affirmed
that an accused is entitled to the speedy trial as he has a
Fundamental Right to the same as well as right to life and
personal liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of
India and the Court is not deprived of the power to grant bail
even in special enactments. If the alleged offence is a serious
one, it is all the more necessary that the Prosecution should
ensure that the trial is expedited and concluded at the earliest.
Also, when a trial is prolonged, it is not open to the Prosecution
to oppose the bail application. However, in particular facts of a
given case, the Constitutional Court may also decline to grant
bail.

72. The position is also settled that the person accused of
offences under UA(P) Act shall not be released on bail if it
appears that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the
allegations against an accused are prima facie true. Specifically,
in cases where the Charges have already been framed, the
rigours are stricter. As far as the twin prong test is concerned,
the first prong pertains to whether the test for rejection of bail
are sufficient and satisfied. The other prong being the
satisfaction of the triple test, on the factors such as flight risk,
influencing of witness and tampering of evidence.

73. The present case ought to be considered in the backdrop
of the aforementioned binding precedents, guidelines,
observations, and with the facts and circumstances of the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 36 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
present case. We have perused the affidavits filed on behalf of
the Respondent. In the affidavit dated 06.11.2024, it has been
stated on behalf of the Respondent that there is no delay in the
trial on the part of the Prosecution. On 16.03.2022, Charges
were framed against 15 accused persons including 2
absconders, and were modified on 11.04.2022. One of the
accused namely, Yaseen Malik, pleaded guilty on 18.04.2022
for all the offences mentioned in the Charge Order, and vide
Order dated 19.05.2022, he has been convicted for the offences
punishable under Sections 120-B, 121, 121A of IPC, 13 of
UA(P) Act read with Section 120-B IPC, 15 of UA(P) Act read
with 120-B IPC, 17, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of UA(P) Act. He has
been sentenced to life imprisonment vide the Order dated
25.05.2022. The admission/denial of documents was undertaken
and the case was set for examination of Prosecution witnesses
on 01.11.2022. Since then, 21-22 witnesses have been examined
and the last witness was examined on 19.09.2024. The learned
Senior Counsel has categorically submitted that 92 witnesses
out of the total 242 witnesses are to be dropped by the
Prosecution, and the remaining witnesses are yet to be
examined. However, he submitted that recently an issue has
come up that whether the further trial of the co-accused Abdul
Rashid Sheikh, who has now been elected as a MP, will be held
by the Special Judge, NIA Court or by the Special Court for
MP/MLAs, for which further directions are awaited. From a

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 37 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
perusal of the affidavit, it is clear that the trial, being underway,
was taken up twice/thrice in a week and had been fast tracked.

74. Now, coming to the case of the Prosecution against the
Appellant that he, in conspiracy with the Accused No. 10, and
provided a cover for him to bring in foreign remittances in
India. Accused No. 10, Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali is alleged
to be involved in unlawful acts and terror funding with the other
accused persons and to have acted as a conduit for transfer of
funds received from Accused No. 1, Hafiz Muhammad Saeed,
ISI, Pakistan High Commission, New Delhi, as well as funds
received from a source in Dubai, to the Hurriyat
Leaders/secessionists and terrorists in furtherance of waging
war against the Government of India by stone pelting, burning
of schools, etc., and the secession of Jammu and Kashmir from
the Union of India.

75. The Prosecution claimed that the said source of funds
from Dubai is linked with the Appellant by means of the
partnership concern that is NZ International FZC, with the
Accused No. 10. The Appellant is also connected with Accused
No. 10 by way of the agreement entered into by them to provide
cover for the foreign remittances so received and the bogus
firms/companies incorporated in pursuance of raising funds
through M/s Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt Ltd, etc. and
M/s NZ Farms and Resorts. It also emerged that no business
activity had been undertaken by the M/s NZ Farms and Resorts

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 38 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
and NZ Farms and Constructions Ltd, which had been
incorporated by Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and the Appellant.

76. The Prosecution claims that an agreement dated
07.11.2014 was entered into between the Appellant and M/s
Trison Farms and Constructions for the lease of a piece of land
in Nagbal, Budgam for a premium of Rs. 6 Crores and annual
rent of Rs. 1,000/-, and the said land was to be used for
commercial purposes. The Appellant, in pursuance thereto,
remitted Rs.5.57 Crores in 22 instalments during the period
from 2013 to 2016. However, as per the Prosecution and the
material collected by it, it was claimed that no such land existed
in the name of M/s Trison Farms and Constructions, which was
held to be the absolute owner by virtue of the abovementioned
agreement. It was also contended that no land existed in the
name of M/s Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt Ltd as per the
balance sheets of the said company for the Assessment Years
2011-2012 to 2016-2017, reference in this regard was made by
the learned Senior Counsel to the document D211, which is a
letter from the Income Tax Office, Anantnag containing income
tax return details for the last 6 years of Zahoor Ahmad Shah
Watali.

77. The Appellant has relied on the Partnership Deed dated
13.12.2006 of M/s Trison Farms and an irrevocable Power of
Attorney (PoA) dated 09.12.2006 executed by M/s Trison
Farms in favour of M/s Trison Farms and Constructions Pvt.

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 39 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

Ltd. to contend that the owners of the land entered into the said
partnership, which then executed the PoA. It was contended that
based on the PoA, the lease was executed by M/s Trison Farms
and Construction Pvt. Ltd. with the Appellant. The learned
counsel for the Appellant contended that the description of M/s
Trison Farms & Construction Pvt. Ltd. as owner of the land,
was a mere mistake and no criminal intent can be attributed to
the Appellant by the same.

78. On the other hand, it was submitted by the learned Senior
Counsel for the Respondent that these documents were not
produced before the Investigation Officer during the
investigation of the present case. He submitted that the manner
in which these documents have been executed appear to be
suspicious.

79. The above contention of the learned counsel for the
Appellant would be a matter of trial and his defence in the
same. Presently, in face of the lease deed, which is shrouded
with suspicion, it cannot be said that the Prosecution has not
made out a prima facie case against the Appellant.

80. The Appellant had claimed the source of the said money
to be the amount received by selling certain gold jewellery.
However, the Prosecution found the same not to be a
satisfactory explanation as to its source, in view of certain
discrepancies such as the amount obtained from sale of gold
being less than the amount remitted by the Appellant. With

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 40 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
regard to the land, the Prosecution claimed suspicious
circumstances and elements surrounding the agreement such as
the agreement was notarized in the name of Ghulam Mohd,
instead of the Appellant or the Accused No. 10, 4 Kanals of the
land in question was mortgaged with J&K Bank and as such, no
agreement could have been entered in this regard. The land was
purchased for commercial activities, however, no conversion of
land, or an attempt thereof, was ever made by the parties to the
agreement till date, and the Appellant started remitting funds to
the tune of Rs. 1.30 Crores to the Accused No.10 much before
the date of agreement. Importantly, the Agreement was valid for
a period of three months from the date of its attestation, but
large sum of money was remitted by the Appellant to Accused
No. 10 even after the expiry of the agreement and for over 2
years. Moreover, the documents, that are, the Partnership Deed
and the Irrevocable Power of Attorney are yet to be proved
during trial. Keeping this in view, the Prosecution has been able
to establish prima facie case that the Appellant aided and
assisted the Accused No. 10 to bring foreign remittances into
India for furthering secessionist and terrorist activities by the
Accused No. 10 in the Kashmir valley.

81. Notably, the role of the Appellant is intrinsically linked
with the Accused Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, whose bail
application was initially rejected by the learned ASJ in the
present NIA case and was assailed by him before this Court in

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 41 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Criminal Appeal No. 768/2018. This Court considered accused
Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali‟s Appeal and granted him bail vide
the Order dated 13.09.2018. Thereafter, this Order was
successfully challenged by the NIA before the Supreme Court
in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (supra) wherein the Supreme
Court found reasonable grounds to believe the allegations
against the Accused No. 10 to be prima facie true and the Order
of this Court granting bail to the said accused was set aside and
the Order of the learned ASJ was affirmed, holding as under

with respect to Accused No. 10 Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali:

“32. Accordingly, we have analysed the matter
not only in light of the accusations in the FIR
and the charge-sheet or the police report made
under Section 173, but also the documentary
evidence and statements of the prospective
witnesses recorded under Sections 161 and 164,
including the redacted statements of the
protected witnesses, for considering the prayer
for bail.

X
X

34. After having analyzed the documents and
the statements forming part of the charge-sheet
as well as the redacted statements now taken on
record, we disagree with the conclusion
recorded by the High Court. In our opinion,
taking into account the totality of the report
made under Section 173 of the Code and the
accompanying documents and the
evidence/material already presented to the
Court, including the redacted statements of the
protected witnesses recorded under Section 164
of the Code, there are reasonable grounds to
believe that the accusations made against the
Respondent are prima facie true. Be it noted,
further investigation is in progress.”

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 42 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

82. In the backdrop of the aforesaid, we may herein itself
note that there are direct transactions/dealings between the
Appellant and the Accused No. 10 in terms of various
agreements and partnerships entered into between them. The
Supreme Court in the aforementioned case, in detail, observed
the incriminating evidences against the Accused No. 10. The
Supreme Court had also noted the allegations from the
Chargesheet, the extract of which is hereinbelow:

“40…..

17.6.5 (Hawala): …… (iv) During the course of
investigation, it was also revealed that on 7-11-
2014, one Naval Kishore Kapoor, son of Om
Prakash Kapoor, resident of PO Box 8669,
Oman, UAE entered into an agreement with
Trison Farms and Constructions (P) Ltd.
through its Managing Director Zahoor Ahmad
Shah Watali to take a piece of land measuring
20 kanals in Sozeith Goripora Nagbal, Badgam
on lease in consideration of an amount of Rs 6
crores as premium and Rs 1000 annual rent for
an initial period of 40 years extendable as may
be mutually agreed between the parties. In the
agreement, M/s Trison Farms and
Constructions (P) Ltd. was declared to be the
absolute owner of the piece of land in question.
Mr Naval Kishore Kapoor remitted a total
amount of Rs 5.579 crores in 22 instalments
between 2013 and 2016 to the accused Zahoor
Ahmad Shah Watali.

This clearly shows that Zohoor Watali was
remitting money received from unknown sources
to India.”

83. With regard to the some of the documents which are also
relied upon by the Respondent to implicate the Appellant, the
Supreme Court in reference to the co-accused Zahoor Ahmad

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 43 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Shah Watali, also observed as under:

“41. In reference to these accusations, the
entry in the diaries and the green-coloured
document, recovered from the residence of
Ghulam Mohammad Bhatt, is significant.

Further, the seizure memo described as
document No.D-3/6, in respect of search and
seizure of articles/documents seized from
the premises of the Respondent (Accused 10)
dated 03.06.2017, would unravel the activities
of the Respondent, including regarding his
financial deals…………….

44. The view so expressed by the Designated
Court commends to us.

45. Suffice it to observe that the High Court
adopted a tenuous approach – by first
discarding the document No. D-132(a) and
then discarding the statement of witnesses
recorded under Section 161 and also the
statements recorded under Section 164,
presented by the Investigating Agency in a
sealed cover. As aforesaid, the High Court
ought to have taken into account the totality of
the materials/evidences which depicted the
involvement of the Respondent in the
commission of the stated offences and being a
member of a larger conspiracy, besides the
offence under Section 17 for raising funds for
terrorist activities.”

84. The document [D-132(a)] relied upon by the Prosecution
against the Appellant, which is the green loose sheet of paper
seized from the house of the Accountant of Zahoor Ahmad
Shah Watali, allegedly reveals foreign remittances received by
the Accused Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali from 2015-2016, the
time period during which the Prosecution claims that the
Appellant had remitted funds to him. The same has also been
taken note by the Supreme Court, as under:

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 44 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

“39. Reverting to the documents on which
emphasis has been placed, Document No. D-
132 is the seizure memo of properties seized
from the premises of Ghulam Mohammad Bhatt
(W-29), the then Munshi/Accountant of the
Respondent (Accused 10). Document No. D-
132(a) is the green page document, seized
during the search of the residence of the said
Ghulam Mohammad Bhatt, containing
information about foreign contributions and
expenditures of the Respondent (Accused 10)
during 2015/2016. Whether this document is
admissible in evidence would be a matter for
trial. Be that as it may, besides the said
document, the statements of Ghulam
Mohammad Bhatt (W-29) has been recorded on
30-8-2017 and 1-11-2017. Whether the
credibility of the said witness should be
accepted cannot be put in issue at this stage.
The statement does make reference to the
diaries recovered from his residence showing
transfer of substantial cash amounts to different
parties, which he has explained by stating that
cash transactions were looked after by the
Respondent (Accused 10) himself. He had
admitted the recovery of the green-coloured
document from his residence, bearing signature
of the Respondent (Accused 10) and mentioning
about the cash amounts received and disbursed
during the relevant period between 2015 and
2016.The accusation against the Respondent
(Accused 10) is that accused A-3 to A-10 are
part of the All Parties Hurriyat Conference
which calls itself a political front, whereas their
agenda is to create an atmosphere conducive to
the goal of cessation of J&K from the Union of
India. The role attributed to the Respondent
(Accused 10) is that of being part of the larger
conspiracy and to act as a fund raiser and
finance conduit. Ample material has been
collected to show the linkages between the
Hurriyat leaders of the J&K and
terrorists/terrorist organisations and their
continuous activities to wage war against the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 45 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Government of India.”

85. The Prosecution has also heavily relied on the statement
of the protected witness Romeo, recorded under Section 164 of
Cr.P.C. He states that the Appellant and Accused No. 10 came
by the said witness‟s office in October, 2014 for formation of
M/s NZ Farms and Resorts for the purpose of hospitality and
building activities, which company was subsequently formed
with an authorized capital of Rs. 1 Crore in December, 2014,
and they had also discussed investment through remittances
from Dubai. The learned ASJ had noted that this witness
prepared the balance sheet for period ending on 31.03.2015.

86. It is an admitted position that Appellant has been charged
with offence under Section 17 of the UA(P) Act and Section
120B of IPC and is discharged of the offence punishable under
Section 21 of UA(P) Act. It would be relevant to reproduce
Section 17 of the UA(P) Act which reads as under:-

“17. Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act.–
Whoever, in India or in a foreign country, directly or
indirectly, raises or provides funds or collects funds,
whether from a legitimate or illegitimate source, from any
person or persons or attempts to provide to, or raises or
collects funds for any person or persons, knowing that
such funds are likely to be used, in full or in part by such
person or persons or by a terrorist organisation or by a
terrorist gang or by an individual terrorist to commit a
terrorist act, notwithstanding whether such funds were
actually used or not for commission of such act, shall be
punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than five years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.–For the purpose of this section,

(a) participating, organising or directing in

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 46 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
any of the acts stated therein shall
constitute an offence;

(b) raising funds shall include raising or
collecting or providing funds through
production or smuggling or circulation of
high quality counterfeit Indian currency;
and

(c) raising or collecting or providing funds,
in any manner for the benefit of, or, to an
individual terrorist, terrorist gang or
terrorist organisation for the purpose not
specifically covered under section 15 shall
also be construed as an offence.”

87. The Section primarily provides for the punishment for
raising funds for the terrorists act. It states that anyone who
raises funds from any source whether legitimate or illegitimate,
in India or abroad, can be imprisoned for a minimum of 5 years
upto life, and can also be fined. It also applies to attempts made
to raise funds for a terrorist act, for a terrorist organisation, gang
or individual terrorist. It includes raising funds through
smuggling, production, or circulation of counterfeit Indian
currency.

88. It is also relevant to note that this Court, at this stage, is
not required to hold a detailed analysis of the evidence, and the
case is to be considered on the broad probabilities. The present
is a case of a conspiracy, therefore, it is the circumstances that
unfold the evidence, from which it has emerged that there is a
larger conspiracy entered between various terrorist
organizations with the assistance from funding raised by them
through illegal means for furthering terrorist and secessionist

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 47 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
activities in Jammu and Kashmir. The Appellant has been
accused of channelling funds to the Accused No. 10, who would
further remit these funds to be utilized by the terrorist
organizations for wreaking havoc by way of stone pelting,
burning of schools, etc in the Kashmir valley. The above
discussion prima facie reveals that (i) money of terror funding
was sent from and by Pakistan and its agencies and (ii) that
Accused No. 10 was one of the main conduits for flow of this
terror funding, and (iii) the Appellant had played an active part
in facilitating it.

89. In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances that
have emerged, coupled with the observations by the Supreme
Court as noted hereinabove, and that this Court found on record,
sufficient material is available to prima facie point towards
involvement of the Appellant that he along with Accused no. 10
aided and abetted flow of funds from fake and bogus companies
floated in UAE to channelize the same to secessionists and
separatists in Kashmir valley, suffice to say, there are
reasonable grounds to believe the allegations against the
Appellant to be prima facie true in reference to the documents
collected by the investigating agency during the investigation,
which on broad probabilities, are sufficient to implicate the
Appellant in the present case.

90. The credibility and admissibility of the documents are not
to be tested at this stage and they are to be treated as it is, as per

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 48 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
the laid down law. Needless to say, once the Charges have been
framed in a given case, it is safe to assume that there is a strong
suspicion based on the material brought on record by the
Prosecution, which is satisfied in the present case.

91. The Appellant has claimed that he is a resident of Dubai
and has spent the past 20 years in Dubai and has business
interest there. In the event of his release on bail, there is a
likelihood of him fleeing from the clutches of law to evade
Prosecution, given the nature and gravity of offences he is
visited with. The Prosecution is yet to examine all of its
protected witnesses, as submitted during the course of
arguments, therefore, the possibility also cannot be ruled out
that Appellant may influence them or tamper with evidence.

92. Proceeding to address the submission of the Appellant
that the arresting officer was not authorized by the Designated
Authority under Section 43A of UA(P) Act to carry out his
arrest as no general or special order or even an authorization as
required under the said provision had been made, which was
vehemently refuted by the Respondent by submitting that the
Appellant was arrested after due compliance of the laid down
procedure and was arrested vide Arrest Memo dated 26.07.2018
and moreover, the contentions and averments raised by the
Appellant have all been considered by this Court in its Order
dated 28.05.2019 at the time of testing „Cognizance‟ in Appeal,
and no Special Leave Petition had been preferred by the

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 49 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Appellant to assail the same before the Supreme Court.

93. We had also put to the learned counsel for the
Respondent as to whether the Officer arresting the Appellant
was the authorized person to carry out his arrest in compliance
of Section 43A of the UA(P) Act. To which query, the learned
counsel for the Respondent, alluded to the FIR dated
30.05.2017 and also referred to the Office Order dated
07.07.2017, Order dated 26.07.2018 under Section 43A of the
UA(P) Act and the Case Diary dated 26.07.2018 of the present
case, and submitted that upon perusal of the same, it would be
clear that there was a valid authorization in favour of Shri.
Arvind Digvijay Negi to conduct investigation into the case and
thus, to arrest the accused.

94. To the said submission, the learned counsel for the
Appellant submitted that the said documents never formed part
of the Chargesheet nor were placed with it. Therefore, the same
cannot validate the arrest of the Appellant.

95. At this stage, we may also reproduce Section 43A of the
UA(P) Act:

“43A. Power to arrest, search, etc.–Any officer
of the Designated Authority empowered in this
behalf, by general or special order of the
Central Government or the State Government,
as the case may be, knowing of a design to
commit any offence under this Act or has
reason to believe from personal knowledge or
information given by any person and taken in
writing that any person has committed an
offence punishable under this Act or from any
document, article or any other thing which may

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 50 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
furnish evidence of the commission of such
offence or from any illegally acquired property
or any document or other article which may
furnish evidence of holding any illegally
acquired property which is liable for seizure or
freezing or forfeiture under this Chapter is kept
or concealed in any building, conveyance or
place, may authorise any officer subordinate to
him to arrest such a person or search such
building, conveyance or place whether by day
or by night or himself arrest such a person or
search a such building, conveyance or place.”

96. The referred portion from the FIR dated 30.05.2017
reads as under:

“Shri Arvind Digvijay Negi, IPS, SP/TFFC,
NIA Headquarter, New Delhi has been directed
to take up the investigation into the case as the
Chief Investigation Officer.”

97. We may also note the relevant extracts from the Order
dated 26.07.2018 under Section 43A of the UA(P) Act passed
by the Director General, NIA, the same are as below:

“Now, therefore, in exercise of powers
conferred by the Central Government under
Section 43-A of the Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967, I direct Sh. Arvind
Digvijay Negi, IPS, SP, NIA to arrest the above
person observing all legal formalities”

98. Learned counsel for the Respondent drew our attention to
the Case Diary dated 26.07.2018 and submitted that a proposal
was forwarded to the Competent Authority in this regard and on
getting the said approval, the Appellant was arrested following
all legal procedures and the grounds of arrest were conveyed to
him, as has duly been recorded in the Case Diary.

99. In view of the above and also upon perusal of the Arrest

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 51 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
Memo dated 26.07.2018, we find that Shri A.D. Negi, IPS, SP,
NIA is the arresting Officer effecting Appellant‟s arrest. The
said Arrest Memo also bears the signatures of the Appellant.
We do not find any force in the submission of the Appellant that
as the aforesaid documents were not filed along with the
Chargesheet, the same have no relevance. All the above
documents have been executed before effecting the arrest of the
Appellant and will not lose their relevance merely because the
same were not filed along with the Chargesheet. Therefore,
there is no substance in the submissions of the Appellant
regarding his arrest being improper.

100. At this stage, we may also analyse the judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant.

101. In the case of K.A. Najeeb (supra), amongst other factors,
importantly, the trial had not commenced (which is not the case
herein) and the co-accused was convicted and sentenced to only
8 years of imprisonment and the accused therein had already
undergone incarceration of 5 years in custody, therefore, the
accused was enlarged on bail. The present case is also
distinguishable on facts inasmuch as the co-accused Yasin
Malik has been sentenced to life imprisonment by the learned
ASJ.

102. The decision in Ashim (supra) is distinguishable on facts
inasmuch as the Charges in the said case were framed 7 years
after filing of the Chargesheet. Moreover, the examination of

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 52 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
PW-1 was itself yet to be completed.

103. In Shoma Kanti Sen (supra) the Charges were yet to be
framed and the allegations against the accused were not prima
facie found to be made out under Chapter IV and VI of UA(P)
Act.

104. In V. Senthil Balaji (supra), there were a total of 2000
accused persons who were yet to argue on framing of Charge,
and, thereafter, around 600 Prosecution witnesses to be
examined. Moreover, the case pertained to Prevention of Money
Laundering Act, 2002.

105. In Jahir Hak (supra), the co-accused had been granted
bail by the Supreme Court, moreover, this decision was
rendered on the basis of the nature of the case against the
accused, the evidence already recorded wherein nothing had
been found against the accused therein, and his period of
incarceration. Even, the other cases relied upon also do not
come to the aid of the Appellant. They are not being discussed
in detail for want of brevity.

106. We, thus, find merit in the submission of the learned
Senior Counsel for the Respondent that the decisions relied
upon by the Appellant are distinguishable on their own facts, as
in some of these cases the co-accused had been granted bail or
was sentenced to a lesser punishment, the Charges not having
been framed, the trial being at the nascent stages or no
witnesses having been examined since the framing of Charges,

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 53 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
or the Charges were not serious that warranted further
incarceration or that the Charges were not serious as compared
to offences under UA(P) Act; factors which make them
distinguishable to the case at hand.

107. Insofar as the argument of the learned counsel for the
Appellant that the Appellant was initially a witness in the
investigation and was subsequently arrayed as an accused in
absence of any incriminating material brought forth by the
Respondent in the supplementary Chargesheet, the same was
controverted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent
by contending that merely because the Appellant was once a
witness, it would not be a bar to the Prosecution to array him as
an accused if evidence pointed his involvement in the crime.
Moreover, he contended that it is settled law that the
investigating agency can file a supplementary Chargesheet
based on reinterpretation of the existing evidence and even
without existence of new material on record. Reliance for which
was placed in the following judgements:

 Hemant Dhasmana vs CBI: (2001) 7 SCC 536
 Deepak Dwarkadas Patel and Anr. vs State of Gujarat: 1979
SCC OnLine Guj 19
 Madhusudan Mukherjee & Anr. vs State of Bihar &Anr.:

2009 SCC OnLine Pat 574
 State of Orissa vs Mahima Alias Mahimananda Mishra
&Ors.: (2007) 15 SCC 580
 P.G. Periasamy & Anr. vs Inspector of Police, Pennagaram
Police Station: 1983 SCC OnLine Mad 106

108. We find that this submission was also raised before this
Court while assailing the order passed by the learned ASJ

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 54 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05
taking „Cognizance‟ of the Supplementary Chargesheet, the said
order has been affirmed in Appeal before this Court and has not
been assailed before the Supreme Court. The relevant
observations of this Court vide Order dated 28.05.2019 in Naval
Kishore Kapoor v NIA (supra) are as under:

“21. Having discussed the material available on
record, we are of the considered view that the
arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant
that the learned Trial Court erroneously and
wrongly took cognizance against the Appellant
because no fresh material was produced by the
investigating agency in the supplementary
chargesheet implicating the Appellant in the
alleged conspiracy, is without force as there is
sufficient material available on record which
prima facie points towards the involvement of
the Appellant that he along with accused No.
10/Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali aided and
abetted the flow of funds from fake and bogus
companies floated in UAE and channelize the
same to the secessionists and separatists in
Kashmir Valley. The National Investigation
Agency on the basis of fresh material collected,
was able to unearth the fresh cause of action
against the Appellant/Naval Kishore Kapoor
and filed the supplementary chargesheet against
him.”

109. This in itself shows that the evidence and the material
collected by the investigating agency have prima facie been
tested at that stage. Now, even the Charges have been framed
against the Appellant and this argument was also raised before
the learned Trial Court during the framing of Charge, which
order has not been assailed by the Appellant. Therefore, we find
no merit in the said contention of the Appellant.

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 55 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

110. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Appeal is,
accordingly, dismissed. However, we make it clear that the
observations made hereinabove are only for the purpose of
deciding this Appeal and would not be treated as an expression
on the merits of the case before the learned ASJ.

SHALINDER KAUR, J.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J.

MARCH 12, 2025
KM/SU

Signature Not Verified
CRL. A. 02/2020 Page 56 of 56
Digitally Signed
By:NEELAM
Signing Date:12.03.2025
19:59:05

Source link

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., … vs Shivaji S/O Gangadas Patel And Others on 6 March, 2025

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 6 March, 2025

Union Territory Of J&K Through … vs Virander Kumar S/O Sh. Karam Chand on 5 March, 2025

Shaik Karimunnisa vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 2025

Mohan Hircachand Shah vs Mrs. Bina Ketan Samani on 27 February, 2025

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., … vs Shivaji S/O Gangadas Patel And Others on 6 March, 2025

Page No.# 1/6 vs The State Of Assam And 5 Ors on 6 March, 2025

Union Territory Of J&K Through … vs Virander Kumar S/O Sh. Karam Chand on 5 March, 2025

Shaik Karimunnisa vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 19 February, 2025

Mohan Hircachand Shah vs Mrs. Bina Ketan Samani on 27 February, 2025

Naval Kishore Kapoor vs National Investigation Agency on 12 March, 2025

Delhi High Court

Naval Kishore Kapoor vs National Investigation Agency on 12 March, 2025

Author: Navin Chawla

Bench: Navin Chawla

LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply

About us

Company

Top Stories

Now Is the Time to Think About Your Small-Business Success

Program Will Lend $10M to Detroit Minority Businesses

Kansas City Has a Massive Array of Big National Companies

Subscribe