New Delhi, November 3, 2026: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday reserved its order on the regular bail plea of Baramulla Member of Parliament Abdul Rashid Sheikh, popularly known as Engineer Rashid, in a 2017 National Investigation Agency (NIA) case linked to alleged terror funding and secessionist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
A Division Bench comprising Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan reserved the order after hearing submissions from Senior Advocate N. Hariharan (assisted by Vikhyat Oberoi) for Sheikh and Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra (assisted by Special Public Prosecutor Akshay Malik) for the NIA.
Sheikh, who has been in judicial custody at Tihar Jail since his arrest by the NIA in August 2019, faces charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and provisions of the Indian Penal Code, including criminal conspiracy and related offences. The case (RC No. 10/2017/NIA/DLI) was registered in May 2017. He was not named in the initial chargesheet or the first supplementary chargesheet but was arrayed as an accused in the second supplementary chargesheet filed in October 2019. Charges were framed against him and others in March 2022.
Appearing for Sheikh, Senior Advocate Hariharan submitted that the accused has spent nearly seven years in custody. He pointed out that co-accused Shabir Ahmad Shah, charged with similar offences in the same case, was granted bail by the Supreme Court in March 2026 on grounds of prolonged incarceration and delays in the trial. The court has previously noted the large number of witnesses (around 240) and observed that the trial is likely to take considerable time to conclude.
Opposing the bail, Senior Advocate Luthra for the NIA alleged that Sheikh had influenced prosecution witnesses. He submitted that testimonies examined so far indicated influence on three specific witnesses, of whom at least two protected witnesses had turned hostile. The NIA further contended that Sheikh had delivered speeches against India, supported anti-India activities, and met witnesses during periods of interim bail. Citing the influence he allegedly wields, the agency argued that he does not deserve bail.
Defence counsel rejected the influence allegation, stating that the witnesses in question had long-standing professional associations with Sheikh (including a driver and personal assistants) and that he had spent most of the relevant period in custody. Counsel also noted that as a Member of Parliament, Sheikh has sworn allegiance to the Constitution of India.
Sheikh has earlier been granted interim bail or custody parole on multiple occasions, including to take his oath as MP, attend Parliament sessions, campaign during elections, and attend to matters related to the demise of his father. In September 2026, the High Court had asked the NIA whether he could be released on bail under stringent conditions, such as restricting his stay to Delhi, and listed the matter for further hearing on November 3.
The broader NIA case involves allegations of funding from Pakistan-based networks and hawala channels to support separatist and terrorist activities in the Valley. Other accused in the matter include figures such as Yasin Malik. The trial remains ongoing, and the High Court’s order on the bail plea is now awaited.
