What is the Delhi HC's Response to Engineer Rashid’s Bail Plea?

Synopsis
Key Takeaways
- Delhi High Court seeks NIA's response to Engineer Rashid's bail plea.
- Rashid has been in jail since 2019 for allegations of terror funding.
- He won the Baramulla Lok Sabha seat in 2024.
- A significant delay of 1100 days was noted in the proceedings.
- The court will address the delay condonation in the next hearing.
Delhi, May 15 (NationPress) The Delhi High Court on Thursday requested the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to respond to the bail application of imprisoned MP Engineer Rashid, who is facing allegations in a terror funding case initiated by the agency.
The bench comprising Justice Subramonium Prasad and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar issued a notice to the NIA regarding Rashid's appeal, which contests a trial court's previous decision to deny him regular bail in this case.
Rashid has been incarcerated since 2019 under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) related to terror funding.
In 2024, he secured victory in the Baramulla Lok Sabha constituency, defeating the sitting Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah by a margin exceeding two lakh votes.
He was subsequently granted interim bail to participate in the Jammu and Kashmir Assembly elections.
This past March, Additional Sessions Judge Chander Jit Singh of Patiala House Court refused to grant Rashid regular bail. He has previously received custody parole to attend Parliament sessions.
On Thursday, the High Court also deliberated on a plea from Rashid challenging the criminal charges brought against him by the trial court. The NIA opposed this plea, arguing it was filed after a significant delay.
“This matter has seen a delay of 1100 days,” stated Special Public Prosecutor Akshai Malik.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the NIA, argued, "The law mandates that delays exceeding 90 days cannot be overlooked. He must justify the reasons for this delay, which is substantial and warrants opposition."
In response, Rashid's counsel contended that the Court has the discretion to condone the delay.
"The 90-day timeline is not absolute, and the authority to excuse rests with the Court, particularly in cases concerning life and liberty," he asserted.
The Court instructed that a reply be submitted on the specific issue of delay condonation and scheduled the next hearing for July 29. Advocates Aditya Wadhwa and Vikhyat Oberoi represented Engineer Rashid.