Prima Facie Evidence Shows Nayeem Ahmad Khan Was Strategist In Conspiracy With Hurriyat And Terror Groups To Orchestrate Secessionist Violence”: Delhi High Court Denies Bail In UAPA Case

“The Appellant was one of the major links in a deep-rooted conspiracy to orchestrate secessionist activities in Kashmir through terror funding, violence, and coordination with banned terrorist outfits”—Delhi High Court

“Participation In Pro-ISIS Rally, Confessional Sting Operation & Protected Witness Testimonies Show Role In Waging War Against India”: Court Cites Section 43D(5) UAPA To Reject Bail After 7 Years’ Custody. In a significant ruling Delhi High Court dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Nayeem Ahmad Khan, a senior Hurriyat leader and Chairman of the Jammu & Kashmir National Front, seeking regular bail in a case registered under multiple provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 121, 121A IPC and Sections 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 39, and 40 of the UA(P) Act.

The appeal was filed under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, challenging the rejection of bail by the Patiala House Court in December 2022. The Division Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur upheld the denial of bail, citing prima facie material under Section 43D(5) of UAPA, which creates a statutory bar on granting bail where accusations appear true on the face of it.

"The present is a case of conspiracy, therefore, it is the circumstances that unfold the evidence... prima facie, the objective sought to be achieved by the accused persons, including the Appellant, is of secession of Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India through terrorist activities", observed the Court.

Court Finds “Deep-Rooted Conspiracy” Involving Hurriyat, Lashkar, Hizbul And Pakistan Establishment

The NIA investigation, initiated in 2017, alleged a coordinated terror funding and separatist movement involving banned terrorist groups—Lashkar-e-Taiba, Hizb-ul-Mujahideen, and JKLF, with active support from the Hurriyat Conference and Pakistan-based handlers. The appellant was accused of acting as a “planner and strategist”, disseminating protest calendars, coordinating stone-pelting, and receiving funds via hawala networks.

“The Appellant is alleged to be one of the main strategists and planners in the conspiracy with various leaders of Hurriyat Conference as well as numerous banned terrorist organizations… to organize secessionist and terrorist activities… stone pelting, destruction of government properties, arson, waging war against the Government of India,” the Court noted.

The Bench referred to multiple protected witness statements, letters from Hizbul commanders recovered from Khan, and open-source video footage allegedly showing him at a pro-ISIS rally, to conclude that there was enough material to deny bail.

“Sting Operation Shows Appellant’s Admission To Receiving Funds From Pakistan For Instigating Violence”: Court Rejects Entrapment Argument
One of the central pieces of evidence relied upon by the Court was a sting operation conducted by India Today, in which Khan was allegedly recorded admitting to receiving ₹200 crore from Pakistan for orchestrating unrest in the Valley following the death of militant Burhan Wani.

“He also stated in the sting operation that burning the houses of politicians would create a strong political pressure... prima facie, this piece of evidence cannot be ignored,” said the Court, adding that admissibility of the sting was not the test at the bail stage.

The Court rejected the argument of the appellant that the sting was a case of entrapment, holding that even illegally obtained evidence is admissible if it is relevant and genuine, citing Umesh Kumar v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 10 SCC 591.

“Letters From Hizbul Commanders Seeking Funds, And Voice Sample Matches In Sting Operation Cannot Be Brushed Aside”: Delhi HC
The Court found that the recovery of letters dated 2006 from Hizb-ul-Mujahideen commanders requesting and thanking Khan for financial assistance, as well as 21 blank letterheads of Lashkar-e-Taiba, were incriminating.

While the defence argued that these letters were too old to be of evidentiary value, the Court held: “A prior action not being taken by the Prosecution would in no manner dilute the fact that the Appellant was in possession of these letter heads which are incriminating in nature.”

The Court also noted that voice samples from the sting matched Khan’s, adding further strength to the prosecution’s case.

“Appellant Recommended Students For Pakistan Medical Colleges To Earn Commission And Fund Terrorism”: Court Cites Witness Statements
The Bench observed that the appellant had recommended students from militant families for MBBS seats in Pakistani medical colleges, and commissions earned from these admissions were allegedly diverted to fund terror activities.

“Protected witnesses have deposed that commissions were earned by helping such students to secure admissions and the commissions so earned were used to fund terrorist activities,” the Court stated.

Statements from protected witnesses Jack, Alpha, Gamma and others were found to corroborate the NIA's case that the protest calendars, funding channels, and public unrest were carefully coordinated operations with Pakistan’s support.

“Right To Liberty Cannot Override Threat To National Security”: Court Rejects Bail Despite 7-Year Custody

While acknowledging the appellant had been in custody since July 2017, the Court held that prolonged incarceration alone was not sufficient ground for bail, particularly in cases involving terrorism and threats to national integrity.

“In cases involving terrorist activities which have Nation-wide implications… long period of incarceration would not, in itself, be ground enough to enlarge an accused on bail,” the Court remarked.

The Court also noted that the trial was underway, charges had been framed, and the risk of influencing witnesses remained live, especially in light of fears expressed by several protected witnesses.

“Many of the witnesses, including one of the accused who agreed to depose, have expressed apprehension of threat to life from the Appellant,” the Bench observed.

Delhi High Court Applies Watali Test To Uphold Bail Rejection Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali v. NIA, (2019) 5 SCC 1, the Bench held that it was bound to reject bail if there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations were prima facie true.

“This Court is required to see the evidence as prima facie that exists… we find that there are reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the Appellant to be true,” it held.

The Court concluded by affirming that the evidence revealed the nexus between the Hurriyat, Pakistan handlers, and terror outfits, with Khan acting as a vital cog in the terror-financing wheel.

Rejecting the bail application of Nayeem Ahmad Khan, the Delhi High Court upheld the applicability of the Section 43D(5) bar under UAPA, citing the gravity of the conspiracy, documentary evidence, witness testimonies, and the prima facie link of the appellant to terrorist organizations and anti-national activities.

"Grant of bail to the Appellant would be detrimental to the security and safety of the public at large… The evidence prima facie connects the accused to a common objective of seeking secession of Jammu & Kashmir from the Union of India."

Date of Decision: April 9, 2025