SYED IRFAN AHMAD TH HIS MOTHER MST SHAFIQA AKHTER vs NIA JAMMU

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025

Reserved on: 04.05.2026
Pronounced on: 12.05.2026
Uploaded on: 12.05.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgment is pronounced: F ull

Syed Irfan Ahmed S/O Late
Syed Mushtaq Ahmad R/O
Nazneen Pora, Keegam District
Shopian, Kashmir Through his
mother, namely Mst. Shafiqa
Akhter W/o Late Mushtaq
Ahmad Shah R/o Nazneenpora
Keegam District Shopian
Kashmir.



…. Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Mr. Molvi Aijaz Ahmad,
Through:-
Advocate.


Vs.

NIA Jammu.


…..Respondent(s)

Mr. Vishal Sharma, DSGI with
Through:-
Mr Eishan Dadhichi, CGSC &
Mr. Sumant Sudan, Advocate
Mr. Chandan Kr. Singh, PP, NIA
Mr. Ashwani Verma, PP, NIA.


CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE


JUDGMENT


SHAHZAD AZEEM-J
1. This appeal under Section 21 of the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is directed against the order
dated 22 April 2025 passed by the learned Special Judge

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 1 of 12

NIA Cases, Jammu (“the trial Court”) in File No.
217/2024/Misc. titled Syed Irfan Ahmad Vs. National
Investigation Agency, whereby the bail application of the
appellant for offences under Sections 120-B, 121, 121-A &
122 IPC and 17, 18, 19, 38, 39 & 40 of Unlawful Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1967 [“UA (P) Act”], came to be dismissed.

BRIEF FACTS
2. Syed Irfan Ahmad (A-6) has been sent up for trial along
with 10 co-accused in a Hizb-ul-Mujahideen [HM] terror
conspiracy case involving arms and ammunition recovery,
fund raising/transferring, waging of war against India etc.
The appellant along with the co-accused stand formally
charge-sheeted by the trial Court vide order dated 16
December 2022 for the commission of aforesaid offences.
3. By now, prosecution has examined 25 witnesses. It is
also noteworthy that the prosecution has filed two
supplementary charge-sheets on 23 October 2020 and 22
March 2021 respectively.
4. The prosecution case proceeds on the basis of a larger
conspiracy hatched by the accused to wage war against
India by procuring arms and ammunition. There are also
allegation of murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping,
dacoity, and robbery etc.

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 2 of 12

5. The accused Syed Irfan Ahmad (A-6) alleged to have been
the part of this larger conspiracy and acted as an
intermediary between the accused Naveed Mushtaq (A-1),
his elder brother, Irfan Shafi Mir (A-2) and Devender Singh
(A-3), respectively for extending support to the banned
terrorist organization-Hizb-ul-Mujahideen in furtherance of
conspiracy to wage war against Government of India.
6. The evidence collected during investigation reveals that
the accused, Devender Singh (A-3) was in constant touch
with the co-accused for providing all kinds of support
including supply of arms and ammunition, for which he had
also received funds at different points of time.
FINDINGS OF THE TRIAL COURT
7. The trial Court, while dismissing the application,
observed that the trial is at the initial stage and a large
number of material witnesses are yet to be examined,
including the concerned Bank Manager to prove the transfer
of amount from the account of the appellant (A-6) to A-3 in
the month of February; FSL report regarding voice sample;
statements of I/O; disclosure memo by the witnesses,
including PW-72; electronic data by the experts etc.
8. The main reasoning of the trial Court is that PW-31 Syed
Khalid had hosted A-1 and another militant in Jammu, who

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 3 of 12

have confirmed the complicity of the A-6, the real brother of
A-1. The further reasoning prevailed with the trial Court is
that PW-37-Vijay Kumar (SPO) travelled with A-2, A-3 and
A-6 in February, 2019 from Qazigund to Jammu. The trial
Court also took note of the bank records showing transfer of
Rs. 50,000/- from the account of A-6 to the account of A-3,
besides CDR data and voice samples.
SUBMISSIONS AND GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE
9. The main ground is that prosecution has recorded only
11 witnesses out of approximately 90 listed witnesses and
the trial has been going on for the last 05 years. It is urged
that there is no evidence against the appellant; no direct or
indirect incriminating evidence and most of the 11 recorded
prosecution witnesses either did not speak against him or
supported his innocence.
10. According to the appellant, voice clips/chats relied
upon by NIA are not incriminating and, in fact, show that
the appellant assisted the investigation. The appellant has
also questioned the legality of impugned order on the ground
that the trial Court wrongly relied upon certain unrecorded
witnesses that were never mentioned in the charge-sheet. It
is further stated that no recovery of any incriminating
material was made from the appellant. The appellant has a

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 4 of 12

clean past record, is a Government servant and a PhD
scholar. On the aforesaid grounds, the appellant seeks
quashing of the impugned order and grant of regular bail.
11. The respondent has opposed the appeal and has taken
the plea of the bar under Section 43-D (5) of UA(P) Act.
Reference to the material collected during investigation is
also made to support the accusations and the charges
framed against the appellant, note whereof shall be taken
hereinafter at appropriate stage.
ANALYSIS
12. The present case pertains to waging war against
India, hatching of conspiracy, smuggling of arms and
ammunition at the instance of banned terrorist organization-
Hizb-ul-Mujahideen.
13. The appellant has been found to be part of this larger
conspiracy and acted as an intermediary, who facilitated the
safe movement of A-1 (his real brother and District
Commander of HM), and other militants from Shopian to
Jammu in the month of February 2019 for ex-filtration to
Pakistan with the help of HM leadership. The appellant has
acted go-between A-1, A-2 & Devender Singh, a police officer
in Anti-Hijacking Unit (A-3). There is sufficient prima-facie
material supporting the raising of funds and their transfer to

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 5 of 12

A-3 for their safe passage. The call detail records prima-facie
show that the appellant allegedly made hundreds of calls to
A-1, A-2 & A-3 as a part of the conspiracy to supply
arms/ammunition, to harbour militants and to wage war
against India.
14. Although, Mr. Molvi Aijaz Ahmad, learned counsel for
the appellant, vehemently argued that the appellant was
only trying to help society and had nothing to do with
militancy, such a plea cannot be accepted in the present
proceedings. The same can, however, be a valid defence at
the appropriate stage during trial.
15. Another disturbing feature of this appeal is that
during the pendency of present appeal, an application
bearing CrlM No. 212/2026 was filed on 11 February 2026
seeking direction to the Superintendent, District Jail,
Karnal, Haryana for providing the required treatment or in
the alternative, shifting him to Central Jail, Kot Bhalwal or
Central Jail, Srinagar.
16. Mr. Vishal Sharma, learned DSGI produced the order
dated 24 April 2026 passed by the trial Court on an
application moved by the applicant on 24 February 2026
seeking short term bail on health grounds and shifting from

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 6 of 12

District Jail, Karnal Haryana to either Central Jail Kot
Bhalwal or to Central Jail, Kashmir.
17. Admittedly, an application on behalf of the appellant
with twisted facts but seeking the same relief on health
grounds was filed before the trial Court while the High Court
was seized of the matter. This amounts to abuse of the
process of the Court and forum shopping. By such conduct,
the appellant is disentitled to the discretionary relief.

18. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha (2024) 4
1

Supreme Court Cases 431 , a litigant who attempts to
pollute the stream of justice or who touches the pure
fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any
relief, interim or final.
19. Even otherwise, the plea of the appellant that on
account of his ailment he is entitled to discretionary relief is
unfounded, in view of the report dated 23 April 2026 issued
by the Medical Officer, (H.C.M.S-1), District Prison, Karnal
that reads thus:-
“Patient cum inmate named Sayed Irfan
Ahmed S/O Shyed Mushtaq Ahmad got
diagnosed with? Left Lower Lid nacrus by
Doctors at PGIMS Rohtak, which is a small
wart like lesion on left lower eye lid. As size
of lesion/wart is increasing. Doctors at
PGIMS Rohtak planned for Excision under
Local Anaesthesia and advised to come on

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 7 of 12

27.04.2026 for admission and further
management. The above mentioned
procedure is not considered as Major
Surgical procedure and thus it does not
require attendant .”

20. It appears that the appellant has all along been
seeking discretionary relief by concealment or misstating of
facts.
21. Indisputably, the formal charges against the appellant
were framed on 16 December 2022 after drawing prima-facie
satisfaction regarding commission of the alleged offences on
the basis of material collected during investigation, thereby
attracting the rigors and restrictions of Section 43-D (5) of
UA(P) Act.
22. From the material collected during investigation and
while framing charges, a prima-facie case against the
appellant was made out. It is settled law that to arrive at the
conclusion whether there is a prima facie case, the material
collated by the investigating agency must prevail until
contradicted or disproved by other evidence.
23. It is also settled law that at the stage of consideration
of the bail giving of reasons for grant or non-grant of bail are
markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the
evidence. Therefore, the only requirement of law is that
Court has to record a finding on the basis of broad

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 8 of 12

probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused in the
commission of the stated offence or otherwise and thus,
evaluation of evidence, while considering the bail application
is not permissible.
24. As regards the plea of delayed trial and resultant
continuous incarceration, the law on this point is no more
res-integra . Once the appellant is prima facie shown to have
involved in such a heinous crime, the right to speedy trial
does not come to his rescue, because enlargement in that
event would necessarily fraught with danger of indulgence in
similar activities, particularly when non-state actors
operating from across the Border control such terrorist
related activities.
25. In Gurwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and Ors.
2
AIR 2024 SC 952 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, while
dealing with a case involving terrorist activity under UA(P)
Act held that the conventional principle that “bail is the rule,
jail is the exception” does not apply under UA(P) Act. The
power to grant bail is severely restrictive.

26. The Court distinguished the case of K.A Najeeb (2021)
3
3 SCC 713 and held that mere delay in trial pertaining to
grave offences cannot be used as a ground to grant bail

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 9 of 12

especially when the trial is underway and several witnesses
have already been examined.
27. In this regard, the sufficient material gathered during
investigation, which is prima facie pointer to the fact that
appellant was conduit between the terrorist operating across
the border and co-accused so as to transfer funds for the
alleged terrorist related activities etc.
28. In Union of India Vs. Barakathullah etc; 2024 SCC
4
OnLine SC 1019 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court after taking
into consideration law laid down in National Investigation
Agency Versus Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC
5

1 , elaborated the guidelines on the approach that the
Courts must adopt while dealing with bail applications
under the UA(P) Act. The Court must look at the totality of
the material gathered by the Investigating Agency as a
whole. The contents of the documents relied upon by the
prosecution are to be presumed true at this stage and their
admissibility cannot be questioned. The sanctity of such
material must prevail until contradicted and overcome or

disproved by other evidence.
29. In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court in case
titled State of Punjab Vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora;
6
2026 SCC OnLine SC 671 , observed that right to speedy

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 10 of 12

trial under Article 21 of the Constitution is undoubtedy a
valuable constitutional guarantee; but in the context of a
special statute such as the NDPS Act dealing with
commercial quantity, that right has to be read alongside,
and not in displacement of, the mandate of Section 37.
Section 43-D (5) of the UA(P) Act is couched in the similar
language, therefore, this proposition of law enunciated by
Hon’ble Supreme Court is equally applicable to the cases

where rigor of Section 43-D (5) is applicable.
30. The primary role attributed to the appellant is an
intermediary in the conspiracy to the terrorist activities,
therefore, the allegations can be looked into by piecing
together multiple links like; phone records, money trails,
meetings, material against co-conspirators, handlers, or
other witnesses who may appear later in the list of
witnesses. Evaluating only the examined witnesses and
ignoring the remaining ones would amount to a mini-trial
which is legally impermissible.
31. In view of the afore-stated facts, the material available
on record and the conduct of the appellant in approaching
the trial Court for grant of bail during the pendency of
instant appeal, the indulgence at this stage is not only
premature but also is unwarranted.

CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 11 of 12

32. For the aforementioned reasons, bail application of the
appellant is rejected and appeal is dismissed.


(Shahzad Azeem) (Sindhu Sharma)
Judge Judge
Jammu:

12.05.2026
Tarun/PS
Whether approved for reporting: : Yes
Whether the order is speaking : Yes




1
Kusha Duruka Vs. State of Odisha (2024) 4 Supreme Court Cases 432
2
Gurwinder Singh Versus State of Punjab and Ors. AIR 2024 SC 952
3
Union of India Vs. K.A Najeeb (2021) 3 SCC 713
4
Union of India Vs. Barakathullah etc; 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1019
5
National Investigation Agency Versus Zahoor Ahmed Shah Watali (2019) 5 SCC 1
6
State of Punjab Vs. Sukhwinder Singh @ Gora; 2026 SCC OnLine SC 671


CrlA(D) No. 31/2025
Page 12 of 12

Tarun Kumar Gupta
2026.04.14 00:41
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document