1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

CRL.A. 419/2026 & CRL.M.A. 13031/2026, CRL.M.A. 13032/2026

2. The present appeal has been by the Appellant - Abdul Rashid Sheikh under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, inter alia, assailing the order dated 24th April, 2026 (hereinafter, 'impugned order') passed by the ld. Additional Sessions Judge - 03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, Delhi in NIA Case No. 2/2018 arising out of RC No. 10/2017/NIA/DLI.

3. The Appellant is a Member of Parliament, who has been elected from the Baramulla constituency in Jammu and Kashmir in 2024. The Appellant is arrayed as Accused No. 18 in NIA Case No. 2/2018, titled, State v. Hafeez Mohd. Saeed & Ors. and the same is pending trial before the ld. Additional Sessions Judge - 03, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi District, Delhi.

4. The Appellant was arrested on 9th August, 2019 and has remained in custody till date. During this period, the Appellant has been given interim bail for a total period of 48 days for filing his nomination, campaigning for the elections as also for his father's ailments.

5. The Appellant had initially moved for regular bail before the Trial Court which was rejected vide order dated 21st March, 2025. The said order is under challenge in CRL. A. 672/2025. In the said appeal, on behalf of the Appellant, the arguments stand concluded and the National Investigation Agency (hereinafter, 'NIA') is to make its submissions.

6. In the meantime, the Appellant moved for interim bail before the Trial Court on the ground that his father is suffering from various ailments. The facts relating to the medical conditions of the father are set out in the present appeal which is extracted hereinbelow:

          "9. Following are the facts, which necessitated filing of the Application seeking interim bail, before the Ld. Trial Court.

          10. The father of the Appellant was first admitted on 26.03.2026 at Government Chest Diseases Hospital, Srinagar, Jammu & Kashmir, where he remained under treatment till 13.04.2026, and thereafter, he was discharged. He was hospitalized as he was having breathlessness, chest pain and his oxygen level was going down, inter alia.

          A True Copy along with true typed copy of the discharge summary issued by the Government Chest Diseases Hospital, Srinagar, J&K is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-3.

          11. During the hospitalization, Appellant's father was diagnosed with Malignant Pleural Effusion (MPE), which is a serious condition involving accumulation of cancerous fluid between the lungs and chest wall.

          12. Due to accumulation of fluid in the chest, a medical procedure for drainage / removal of fluid was performed i.e. ICTA / Pleurodesis.

          13. Further, a medical test namely pleural biopsy (medical test where a small piece of tissue is taken from the thin membrane that surrounds the lungs and lines the chest cavity) was conducted and samples were sent for examination. As per the Immunohistochemistry (IHC) report dated 16.04.2026, the nature of the cancer is "pulmonary adenocarcinoma", i.e. lung cancer.

          A True Copy along with true typed copy of the Immunohistochemistry (IHC) report dated 16.04.2026 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-4.

          A True Copy of the medical test namely pleural biopsy is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-5.

14. It is submitted that immediately after discharge on 13.04.2026, the condition of the father again deteriorated, and on the night of 14.04.2026, he developed complications and severe uneasiness / breathlessness / chest pain / lowering of oxygen level, due to which he had to be urgently admitted to Department of Medical Record, Government S.M.H.S. Hospital, Srinagar.

15. As per the provisional diagnosis at the said hospital, he is suffering from acute exacerbation of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), which is a severe flare-up or worsening of chronic COPD symptoms, such as increased breathlessness, coughing, and extra mucus.

          A True Copy along with true typed copy of the reports of department of medical record, Government S.M.H.S. Hospital, Srinagar is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-6.

16. Further, there has been re-accumulation of fluid in the chest, requiring repeated medical intervention and drainage procedures. There are further complicated medical issues, as can be seen from the documents annexed herein. He continues to be on ventilator.

17. It is submitted that the urgency in filing of the application before the Ld. Trial Court specifically arose in the evening on 16.04.2026, at around 5/6pm, when the heart rate of the Appellant's father got down to 28 bpm. Medical procedure had to be immediately given to revive his heart beat. Thus, the family apprehends, that the Appellant's father may breathe his breath any time now.

A True Copy along with true typed copy of the notings of the Patient by the treating doctor is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure A-7.

18. Owing to the deteriorating health condition of the Appellant's father, who is 85 years old, he requires continuous medical care. The Appellant's mother is also old, and hence requires emotional support. Hence, the Appellant's presence is crucial to provide the necessary care to his ailing father during this critical."

7. On these grounds, interim bail was sought by the Appellant which was rejected by the Trial Court vide the impugned order dated 24th April, 2026. One of the grounds for rejection is that Appellant is alleged to have interfered in the trial by influencing a witness who was a protected witness by the pseudonym 'Golf'. The Trial Court was inclined to grant custody parole to the Appellant to which NIA had no objection, however, the Appellant was not inclined at that stage to avail of custody parole.

8. Today, this appeal has been filed, i.e., CRL.A. 419/2026 wherein the order dated 24th April, 2026 is under challenge.

9. Mr. Hariharan, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that the allegation that there is influencing of the witnesses by the Appellant is not made out. Ld. Senior Counsel submits that in any event, the medical condition of the father of the Appellant was a sufficient ground for him to be granted interim bail.

10. It is his further submission that certain material was being relied upon by the NIA which was not shown to the Appellant and hence, the same could not have been made the basis for holding that there was influencing of witnesses by the Appellant.

11. On the other hand, Mr. Luthra, ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the NIA submits that there is actual data including CDR records to show that there was influencing of witnesses by the Appellant, while he was out on interim bail in 2024. A sealed cover note was also placed before the Court in the pre- lunch session by the NIA.

12. The Court had asked ld. Senior Counsel for the NIA, after seeking instructions, to give the relevant information in the sealed cover note to the ld. Senior Counsel for the Appellant. When the matter has been taken up post- lunch, the Court has been informed that the ld. Counsel for the Appellant has been given the said information in a redacted form.

13. The further submission on behalf of the NIA is that the said witness i.e., 'Golf' who had earlier given a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, 'CrPC') against the Appellant was influenced to such an extent that he retracted his statement and made baseless allegations against the NIA. The said witness also turned hostile. Hence, there is a reasonable apprehension that there is a possibility of influencing of witnesses by the Appellant. Reliance is also placed upon the fact that the evidence of one protected witness and one non-protected witness is yet to be recorded before the Trial Court. Thus, the apprehension on behalf of the NIA is that if unconditional bail is granted, there is a likelihood that the Appellant may jeopardise the trial.

14. The Court has heard the ld. Senior Counsels on behalf of the parties. The Appellant is admittedly a Member of Parliament and he has also earlier been permitted to file his nomination, campaign and also attend Parliament Session on custody parole (Order dated 25th March, 2025 in CRL. A 299/2025 titled 'Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA').

15. The latest Nominal Roll of the Appellant would show that the Appellant has been in custody for more than 6 years and 8 months except the 48 days when he was out on interim bail. The Appellant was also permitted to attend Parliament Sessions on custody parole.

16. After going through the record and considering the facts in this particular case, the Court is of the opinion that this is a fit case for grant of interim bail for a period of one week from the date of release, subject to the following conditions.

          i. The Appellant shall be released upon furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.50,000/-, with a surety of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Link Court;

          ii. The Appellant during the period of one week shall always be accompanied by at least two police officials in plain clothes. The said police officials shall accompany him from the beginning of the journey from the concerned jail till the seventh day, when he returns from Srinagar. The Jail Superintendent is free to nominate the police officials who shall accompany the Appellant.

          iii. The Appellant shall only be allowed to stay where his father is located, either at his residence or at the hospital where his father is admitted. The details of the same are as under:

          * Hospital - Shri Maharaja Hari Singh Hospital, SMHS Road, Near Gold Market, Karan Nagar, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir -190010

          * Residential Address- House No. 345, Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, Jammu and Kashmir

          iv. The Appellant shall not be permitted to move out of the said two venues;

          v. During the period of the interim bail, when the Appellant is with his father, there shall not be any undue visitors except immediate family.

          vi. The Appellant shall be permitted to use only one mobile number which shall also be given to the I.O., NIA and shall always keep it in 'switch on' mode. The Appellant shall intimate about change in the number, if any;

          vii. The Appellant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact witnesses or their family members in any manner;

          viii. The Appellant shall not indulge in any criminal or unlawful activity and upon any such activity being discovered or indulged into, the present interim bail shall automatically stand cancelled;

          ix. The Appellant shall not leave the country without prior permission of this Court;

          x. Immediately, upon expiry of the bail period, the Appellant shall surrender before the concerned Jail Superintendent and shall be brought back to Delhi.

17. It is made clear that the observations which have been made by the Trial Court in the impugned order shall not come into the way of adjudication of the final matter or in any other proceedings.

18. The NIA is free to raise arguments about influencing of witnesses in CRL.A. 672/2025 which can be duly rebutted by the Appellant.

19. Mr. Luthra, ld. Senior Counsel clarifies that the cost of the police officials to accompany the Appellant need not be borne by the Appellant. This is, however, without prejudice to contentions that are stated to be pending in CRL.A. 299/2025, titled Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA and CRL. A. 1045/2025 titled Abdul Rashid Sheikh v. NIA.

20. Copy of this order to be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and compliance.

21. Order be uploaded on the website of this Court forthwith.

22. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

CRL.A. 672/2025 & CRL.M.A. 10584/2026

24. Accordingly, list on 7th July, 2026.

25. This is a part-heard matter.