Jammu: The NIA on Monday opposed in the Delhi High Court a plea by jailed Jammu and Kashmir MP Rashid Engineer for interim bail in a terror-funding case to attend Parliament.
In its response to Engineer’s plea before Justice Vikas Mahajan, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) said it was a classic case of misuse of the interim bail provision ought to be used sparingly when intolerable grief and suffering was displayed by the accused concerned.
It said his election as a parliamentarian couldn’t be used as a tool to get the relief.
Rashid’s interim bail plea is scheduled for February 4.
His interim bail plea seeks attending the budget session of Parliament, which began on January 31, and concludes on April 4.
He was elected from the Baramulla constituency in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections and is lodged in Tihar Jail since 2019 after the NIA arrested him under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in the 2017 terror-funding case.
The agency said the MP was an influential person and it apprehended he might influence witnesses many of whom were from Jammu and Kashmir.
“… therefore his election as Member of Parliament (Lok Sabha) makes no difference and cannot be used as a tool for getting interim bail under the garb of providing service to the people situated in his constituency,” it said.
The NIA argued his detention in the case was valid and not allowing him to attend Parliament couldn’t be termed violative of his rights and not become a ground for interim bail.
It said the accused did not specify the manner in which he would serve his constituency and a vague averment was made that he intended to “serve the constituency”.
The NIA said Rashid was trying to use the reason to attend Parliament or serve his constituency to get away from the rigours of imprisonment after he was unsuccessful with his regular bail plea.
“… the applicant is a Member of Parliament from Baramulla and is a highly influential person. The answering respondent (NIA) apprehends that since many of the witnesses are from Jammu & Kashmir, the applicant may influence the witnesses,” it said.
On the argument that summons were issued by the President of India inviting him to attend the Parliament session, the NIA said it was a routine matter as such invitations were sent to all parliamentarians.
“The applicant’s conduct has been under scrutiny for misusing the telephone facility provided to him and the answering respondent has earlier placed relevant documents before special court (NIA),” it said and sought liberty to file these documents in a sealed cover whenever directed by the court.
Rashid’s plea, in the alternative, sought custody parole during the budget session.
The plea forms part of his pending petition over grant of bail in the case by the NIA.
His main petition urges the high court to either direct the expeditious disposal of his pending bail plea by the trial court or decide the matter itself.
On December 24 last year, additional sessions judge Chander Jit Singh — who requested the district judge to transfer the case to a court designated to try lawmakers as Rashid was an MP — dismissed his plea asking for an order on the pending bail application in the NIA case.
With the matter sent back to him by the district judge, the trial judge said in his decision that he could only decide the miscellaneous application and not the bail plea.
The NIA counsel said the probe agency in November wrote to the registrar general on the issue of designation of a trial court to hear the case but he was not aware of the status of the request.
The ED filed a money laundering case against the accused persons on the basis of the NIA’s FIR, which accused them of “conspiring to wage war against the government” and fomenting trouble in the Kashmir valley.
Cases of the NIA and the ED also involve Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba chief and 26/11 Mumbai attack mastermind Hafiz Saeed, Hizbul Mujahideen leader Syed Salahuddin and others.
