NIA court rejects bail of Hizbul terror case accused

07/08/2026

JAMMU, Aug 6: A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of Irfan Shafi Mir, an accused in the alleged Hizbul Mujahideen terror conspiracy case involving dismissed police officer Devinder Singh and Hizbul commander Syed Naveed Mushtaq.
Special Judge, NIA Cases, Prem Sagar, dismissed the plea, observing that prolonged incarceration alone could not be a ground for granting bail when the material on record prima facie indicated the accused's involvement in offences affecting national security.
Mir is facing trial in NIA case RC No. 01/2020/NIA/JMU for offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), the Indian Penal Code, the Arms Act and the Explosive Substances Act.
Appearing for the accused, advocate Haroon Khursheed argued that Mir had remained in judicial custody for over six years and that the slow pace of the trial violated his fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. The defence also contended that the prosecution had failed to produce sufficient incriminating evidence during the examination of witnesses and that there was no likelihood of the accused absconding, influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence.
Opposing the bail application, Special Public Prosecutor K.S. Pathania, assisted by Public Prosecutors Chandan Kumar Singh and Ashwani Verma, submitted that Mir had conspired with Devinder Singh and Syed Naveed Mushtaq to wage war against the Government of India and provide support to the banned terrorist organisation Hizbul Mujahideen.
The NIA alleged that Mir, while practising as an advocate, facilitated the movement of two Hizbul militants from Srinagar to Jammu in February 2019 as part of a plan to enable Syed Naveed Mushtaq to cross into Pakistan with the assistance of Pakistan-based Hizbul handlers and the ISI. The agency further alleged that he raised and transferred funds, harboured active militants and participated in recruitment activities for the banned outfit.
The investigating agency argued that charges had already been framed under various provisions of the UAPA, IPC, Arms Act and Explosive Substances Act, and that the accusations were prima facie true, attracting the statutory bar on bail under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
Rejecting the plea, the court observed that the principle of "bail is the rule and jail is the exception" does not apply with the same rigour in cases under the UAPA where the accusations appear prima facie true.
The court further noted that the trial was progressing with witnesses being examined regularly and held that the material on record disclosed the accused's alleged involvement in a conspiracy linked to members of a banned terrorist organisation. It also observed that his release at this stage could influence key witnesses and adversely affect the course of the trial.
Holding that long custody and the plea of personal liberty were insufficient grounds for bail in the facts of the case, the Special Judge dismissed the application.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty