NIA Opposes MP Engineer Rashid's Plea for Interim Bail in UAPA Case

Introduction

In a significant development, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) has opposed the plea filed by Jammu and Kashmir Member of Parliament (MP) Engineer Rashid seeking interim bail in a terror funding case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Rashid's application aims to secure temporary release to attend the ongoing Parliamentary budget session, which commenced on January 31 and is scheduled to conclude on April 4. Alternatively, he has requested custody parole during this period.

Background of the Case

Engineer Rashid, a prominent political figure from Jammu and Kashmir, has been implicated in a terror funding case under the stringent provisions of the UAPA. The NIA initiated the investigation, alleging that Rashid was involved in activities detrimental to national security. In response to the charges, Rashid filed a regular bail application before the trial court, which has yet to pass an order on the matter. The delay in adjudicating his bail plea has prompted Rashid to seek interim relief to fulfill his parliamentary duties.

NIA's Opposition to Interim Bail

The NIA, represented by Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, has contested Rashid's request for interim bail. Luthra argued that Rashid has an alternative remedy under the NIA Act and that a writ petition does not lie to seek the relief he is requesting. He emphasized that under Section 21 of the NIA Act, Rashid must file an appeal challenging the trial court's order before a division bench of the High Court. Luthra questioned whether a writ petition could be entertained in this context, suggesting that it would be contrary to the provisions of the NIA Act.

Rashid's Counsel's Response

In response, Senior Advocate N. Hariharan, representing Engineer Rashid, contended that the trial court's order was not a denial of bail and, therefore, could not be challenged through an appeal under Section 21 of the NIA Act. He argued that an interlocutory order, such as the one in question, does not constitute a final order denying bail and thus does not fall within the ambit of appeal under the statute.

Designation of Special NIA Court

During the proceedings, it was revealed that the NIA had written a representation to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court in November of the previous year, requesting the designation of the special NIA court as an MP/MLA Court. This designation would have implications for the procedural aspects of cases involving elected representatives. The Registrar General has reportedly moved an application before the Supreme Court seeking clarification on this issue.

Court's Considerations

Justice Vikas Mahajan, presiding over the matter, issued notice to the Registrar General to ascertain the status of the clarification sought regarding the designation of the special NIA court. The court is set to hear the matter further on February 6.

Implications of the Proceedings

The outcome of this case holds significant implications for the procedural rights of elected representatives facing charges under the UAPA. The court's decision will address the interplay between statutory provisions and the rights of MPs and MLAs, particularly concerning the designation of courts and the avenues available for challenging orders related to bail and detention.

Conclusion

As the legal proceedings continue, the Delhi High Court's examination of Engineer Rashid's plea for interim bail will be closely watched. The case underscores the complexities involved in balancing national security concerns with the rights of elected officials, highlighting the judiciary's role in interpreting and applying the law in such sensitive matters.