The Delhi High Court on Friday rejected an appeal by Zafar Abbas, who challenged the trial court’s denial of bail in a case involving alleged support for the terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). Abbas was accused of establishing a network of overground workers for the banned outfit.

The court remarked that providing tacit or active support to a terrorist organization like LeT, which has been linked to multiple terror attacks in India, is intolerable under any circumstances.

Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi, representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA), argued that there was direct evidence linking Abbas to Hyder, a Pakistan-based LeT operative. The prosecution contended that Abbas acted as an active overground worker for LeT, citing multiple facts outlined in the charge sheet. Tyagi emphasized that the evidence established a prima facie case against Abbas, leaving no room for doubt about his involvement.

Advocate Sanjiv Jha, appearing for Abbas, challenged the allegations, arguing that his client used a basic keypad mobile phone and could not have operated a WhatsApp account as claimed by the prosecution. Additionally, Jha highlighted discrepancies in the IMEI number of the phone recovered from Abbas’s residence, pointing out that the recovered device's number ended in 1968, while the prosecution alleged it ended in 1960. The defense also noted that while the charge sheet had been filed, the charges were yet to be framed.

The High Court pointed out that LeT is listed as a terrorist organization under Entry 5 of the First Schedule of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). It described LeT’s operational methods, which include recruiting youth, creating fake bank accounts for terror financing, leveraging digital communication, and coordinating with foreign handlers.

The court emphasized that the UAPA prohibits any form of support to terrorist organizations, whether through monetary assistance, networking, or other means, under Sections 38 and 39 of the Act. It noted that the prosecution’s evidence, including recovered documents, call detail records, and location data, established a chain of events linking Abbas to fraudulent transactions, co-accused individuals, and LeT operatives.

Highlighting that modern communication allows for meetings and coordination through digital platforms, the court observed that Abbas allegedly facilitated unlawful activities by opening fraudulent bank accounts, transferring funds, and assisting in recruitment for LeT.

Concluding that Abbas failed to establish his innocence at this stage, the court held that the evidence demonstrated his association with LeT operatives and activities. Finding no reason to interfere with the trial court’s order, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Zafar Abbas v. NIA (2025:DHC:72-DB)
For Appellant: Advocates Sanjiv Jha, Vikash K. Singh, Tusha Chawla, Sarthak Singh, and Sachin Bhatt
For Respondent: Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi with Advocates Jatin, Aniket Kumar, and Amit Rohila