New Delhi:Supreme Court, while granting bail to separatist leader Shabir Ahmed Shah in a 2017 terror funding case, citing his advanced age and the “snail’s pace” of a trial that has seen little progress despite his years of incarceration, has set a number of conditions, including not leaving the territorial jurisdiction of Delhi, using a single phone, and barring him from interacting with the media pertaining to the case, among others.
bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, as per Srinagar-based news gathering agency Kashmir Dot Com, observed that while the NIA has cited 248 witnesses, only 34 have been examined so far, and the charges themselves were only framed in 2022 after Shah had already spent three years in custody as an undertrial.
While granting the relief, the apex court underscored that prolonged detention without the prospect of a timely trial violates the personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.its final order, the Court set aside the 2025 judgment of the Delhi High Court and directed Shah’s release subject to a series of strict monitoring requirements. Setting out the operative conditions for his enlargement, the Court ordered that “he shall not leave Delhi without the permission of the trial Court” and further mandated that “he shall surrender his passport, if any, with the trial Court”.
To ensure constant supervision of his communications, the bench ruled that “he shall use only one mobile phone and/or one landline number during the course of trial” and stipulated that “details of these numbers shall be provided to the Special Public Prosecutor, and the mobile phone shall always be kept in the switched-on mode”.
Regarding his conduct during the trial, the Court directed that “he shall report to the investigating officer of NIA once every fortnight i.e., either Wednesday or Thursday between 10:00 AM to 11:00 AM” and ordered that “he shall neither try to influence any witness nor tamper with evidence”.
The Court further imposed a strict gag order on public statements, directing that “he shall not make any comment in the media about the present case or his role in the case” and required that “he shall furnish an undertaking before the trial Court that he shall not commit any further offence of similar nature while being on bail”.
The bench concluded by clarifying that the prosecution remains at liberty to seek cancellation of bail should any of these conditions be violated.
