Delhi HC asks NIA to clarify stand on Engineer Rashid seeking custody parole to attend Parliament

New Delhi [India], February 6 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked National Investigation Agency (NIA) to clarify its stand on an application moved by Baramulla MP Engineer Rashid seeking custody parole to attend ongoing parliament session amidst a jurisdictional row.

The bench of Justice Vikas Mahajan has scheduled the hearing for February 7.

Rashid, who is currently in Tihar Jail facing terror charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, was mainly sought interim bail.

During the hearing, Delhi High Court acknowledged that the Registrar General has filed an application with the Supreme Court of India regarding the jurisdictional authority to hear Rashid’s bail plea in an NIA case.

This issue arose after the Special NIA Court (Trial Court) recently declined to hear the matter, citing that it falls under the jurisdiction of the MP/MLA court since Rashid Engineer has become a Member of Parliament.

Counsel representing the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court informed the court that the Registrar General has already approached the Supreme Court for clarification and will mention the matter tomorrow before the Supreme Court for urgent listing.

On last date of hearing, NIA opposed the interim bail plea of Baramulla MP Rashid Engineer, arguing that it was not maintainable and should be dismissed on merits. In its reply, the NIA said, “The present case is a classic case of misuse of Interim Bail provision which has to be used sparingly when intolerable grief and suffering is displayed by the concerned Accused.”

NIA further stated that the Applicant/ Rashid Engineer has not specified in what manner he will be able to serve his constituency and vague averment has been made that he intends to “serve the constituency” and therefore the same is not a valid ground for grant of any relief whatsoever. “Moreover, the work done by the Applicant/ Accused is put to strict proof to the work done by the Applicant/ Accused in his constituency,” it said.

Rashid’s counsel Senior Advicate N Hariharan argued that while his bail petition was heard in August, the subsequent issue of jurisdiction had left him without a remedy.

The counsel for Rashid Engineer submitted that his entire constituency cannot go unrepresented for a long period as he was not granted interim bail during the last session as well

He pointed out that his regular bail is pending since September 2024.

Engineer has moved the High Court after Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Chander Jit Singh, the special judge assigned to NIA cases, declined to rule on his bail application on December 23. The judge stated that the court only had the authority to hear miscellaneous applications, not bail petitions.

Rashid was arrested in August 2019 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). During his incarceration, he filed his nomination for the 2024 parliamentary elections from jail and won by a margin of 2,04,000 votes, defeating former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah.

In 2022, the NIA Court of Patiala House Court ordered the framing of charges against Rashid Engineer and several other key figures, including Hafiz Saeed, Syed Salahuddin, Yasin Malik, Shabbir Shah, Masrat Alam, Zahoor Ahmed Watali, Bitta Karate, Aftab Ahmed Shah, Avtar Ahmed Shah, Naeem Khan, and Bashir Ahmed Butt (also known as Peer Saifullah).

The charges are part of an ongoing investigation into terror funding in Jammu and Kashmir, where the National Investigation Agency (NIA) alleges that various militant organizations, such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizbul Mujahideen, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and JKLF, collaborated with Pakistan’s intelligence agency, ISI, to orchestrate attacks on civilians and security forces in the region.

The NIA’s investigation claims that in 1993, the All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC) was formed to further separatist activities, with funding channelled through hawala and other covert methods. Hafiz Saeed, along with Hurriyat leaders, is accused of using these illicit funds to fuel unrest in Jammu and Kashmir, targeting security forces, inciting violence, burning schools, and damaging public property.

The agency contends that these operations were designed to destabilise the region and promote terrorism under the guise of political resistance.