The Delhi High Court is currently reviewing the plea of Jammu and Kashmir MP Engineer Rashid, who has sought interim bail in a terror funding case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Rashid’s request aims to secure his release—at least temporarily—so that he can attend the ongoing Parliamentary budget session, which began on January 31 and is set to conclude on April 04. As an alternative, he has also asked for custody parole during the session.
Read Also - Delhi High Court Asks NIA to Respond to MP Engineer Rashid’s Interim Bail Plea in UAPA Case
Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra, representing the National Investigation Agency (NIA), argued that the lawmaker’s plea does not meet the necessary legal framework for a writ petition. Citing Section 21 of the NIA Act, Luthra explained that there exists an alternative remedy for Rashid under the Act. He stressed that a writ petition is not the correct procedure for obtaining interim bail in this context.
“Does a writ lie? Please see the NIA Act…. If the order failing to hear him was an order denying bail then the remedy was to file an appeal. He doesn't do that. I ask myself, can your lordships be asked to act contrary to Section 21 of NIA Act?…. It has to go to two judges. He cannot circumvent the statutory bar,”
Luthra stated before Justice Vikas Mahajan.
Read Also - Chhattisgarh High Court Slams Road Birthday Celebrations: Calls for Strict Action Against Public Nuisance
Rashid’s bail plea is closely tied to his main petition, which seeks a prompt decision on his second regular bail application. The lawmaker contends that the special NIA judge failed to make any order on his bail plea despite extensive hearings, on the grounds that the case was not being handled by a designated MP/MLA court. In response, Senior Advocate N Hariharan, who represents Rashid, argued that the order in question was not a definitive denial of bail. He maintained that an interlocutory order cannot be challenged through an appeal under Section 21.
Adding further complexity to the matter, Luthra informed the court that the NIA had already sent a representation to the Registrar General of the Delhi High Court in November of last year. The request was made to designate the special NIA court as an MP/MLA court. Recently, the Registrar General moved an application before the Supreme Court seeking clarity on this designation issue. As a result, Justice Mahajan has issued a notice to the High Court Registrar General to provide details regarding the clarification sought. The next hearing on this matter is scheduled for February 06.
Read Also - Can a Special NIA Court Designated as an MP/MLA Court Hear Cases Against Other Accused?
In his petition, Rashid has also requested the court to direct the trial judge to expedite a decision on his pending regular bail application. Alternatively, he has suggested that the current writ petition be treated as his second regular bail plea and be decided by the High Court. This development follows a decision from December by the Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), who stated that while he could rule on Rashid's miscellaneous application, he could not rule on his regular bail application. Subsequently, the Additional Sessions Judge Court had asked the District Judge to transfer the UAPA case to a court designated for MPs and MLAs, following Rashid’s election from the Baramulla constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Read Also - Punjab & Haryana High Court Imposes ₹25,000 Fine on Contemptuous Petition Against Judicial Officers
MP Engineer Rashid has been in Tihar Jail since 2019, after being arrested by the NIA in connection with an alleged terror funding case under the UAPA, dating back to 2017. The ongoing legal debates and procedural arguments continue to shape the course of this high-profile case, with significant implications for parliamentary participation and judicial procedure in cases involving elected representatives.
