The Delhi High Court, hearing a bail plea filed by Nayeem Ahmad Khan, was told that his actions, including recommending medical students to universities in Pakistan, do not establish any criminal liability.

Khan, arrested in July 2017 by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), is accused of “creating unrest” in the Kashmir Valley, with allegations including organizing stone-pelting incidents and burning schools.

Advocate Tara Narula, appearing before the bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Shalinder Kaur, highlighted significant delays in the judicial process. She argued that charges against Khan were framed only after five years, with the trial showing no signs of progression.

Narula referred to established legal precedents, including the Gurvinder case, which ordinarily discourages granting bail in serious offenses. However, she emphasized a Supreme Court judgment mandating bail when trials are unlikely to begin soon. She also cited the Ammar Abdul Rahiman case to assert that bail could be sought even without filing a charge appeal.

Addressing the accusations, Narula argued that while Khan held a senior position in an organization, there was no direct evidence linking him to terrorist activities. Claims of his involvement in a pro-ISIS rally were dismissed as based on circumstantial evidence, and no FIRs were registered against him for stone-pelting or similar offenses.

Narula also challenged the credibility of the sting operation cited by the prosecution, alleging that the video evidence was edited and incomplete. Witness statements, she said, described Khan as pro-Indian, contradicting the prosecution’s claims. She requested the unedited raw footage of the sting operation, which the NIA advocate agreed to provide.

The advocate underscored the incomplete nature of the prosecution’s transcripts, pointing out that a critical one-hour segment had been omitted. She concluded by asserting that the evidence presented thus far failed to substantiate the charges.

The NIA, which had previously assured the court of avoiding undue delays, continues to defend its case. The hearing reflects the court’s scrutiny of prolonged trial timelines and the reliability of evidence.

Case Title: Nayeem Ahmad Khan v. National Investigation Agency (CRL.A.-118/2023)
For Petitioner: Advocates Tara Narula, Tamanna Pankaj, and Anirudh Ramanathan
For NIA: Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik, and others