In a significant development in a long-running terror funding case, the Delhi High Court has reserved its order on the regular bail plea of Baramulla Member of Parliament Abdul Rashid Sheikh, widely known as Engineer Rashid. The matter concerns a 2017 case registered by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) over alleged terror financing and secessionist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
Bench Hears Both Sides
A Division Bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan reserved the decision after hearing arguments from Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, appearing for Sheikh with Vikhyat Oberoi, and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the NIA with Special Public Prosecutor Akshay Malik.
Background of the Case
Sheikh has remained in judicial custody at Tihar Jail since his arrest by the NIA in August 2019. He faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or UAPA, as well as provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy and related offences. The case, numbered RC No. 10/2017/NIA/DLI, was registered in May 2017.
According to the record noted in court, Sheikh was not included in the original chargesheet or the first supplementary chargesheet. He was added as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed in October 2019, and charges were framed against him and others in March 2022.
Arguments on Custody and Delay
For the defence, Senior Advocate Hariharan argued that Sheikh has spent nearly seven years in custody. He also drew attention to the bail granted by the Supreme Court in March 2026 to co-accused Shabir Ahmad Shah, who faced similar allegations in the same case, on the grounds of prolonged incarceration and delay in trial.
The court had earlier noted that the case involves around 240 witnesses and that the proceedings are likely to take substantial time to finish.
NIA’s Objections
Opposing the plea, Senior Advocate Luthra submitted on behalf of the NIA that Sheikh had influenced prosecution witnesses. The agency told the court that testimony so far suggested pressure on three witnesses, and that at least two protected witnesses had turned hostile. It also alleged that Sheikh made speeches against India, supported anti-India activities, and met witnesses during periods of interim bail.
Based on these allegations, the NIA argued that he should not be granted bail.
Defence Response and Interim Reliefs
Sheikh’s counsel rejected the claim that he influenced witnesses. The defence stated that the witnesses referred to by the agency had longstanding professional connections with Sheikh, including as a driver and personal assistants. Counsel also pointed out that he had spent most of the relevant period in custody. It was further submitted that, as a Member of Parliament, Sheikh has sworn allegiance to the Constitution of India.
Sheikh has earlier received interim bail or custody parole on several occasions, including for taking his oath as an MP, attending Parliament sessions, campaigning during elections, and dealing with matters after the death of his father. In September 2026, the High Court had asked the NIA whether he could be released on bail under strict conditions, including a restriction on his stay to Delhi, and then fixed the matter for further hearing on November 3.
Wider NIA Allegations
The broader case relates to allegations that funds flowed from Pakistan-based networks and hawala channels to support separatist and terrorist activities in the Valley. Other accused in the matter include figures such as Yasin Malik. The trial is still in progress, and the High Court’s ruling on Sheikh’s bail plea is awaited.
