E-Paper
Terror funding case: NIA court refuses bail to Dawood associate
The court rejected the bail observing that there was enough material to prove that Shaikh participated in the unlawful activities of the D-company.
A special court on Wednesday rejected the bail plea of Shabbir Abubakar Shaikh, who was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in 2022 in connection with a terror funding case against fugitive gangster Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar.
The court rejected the bail plea of the 53-year-old, observing that there was enough material to prove that Shaikh participated in the unlawful activities of the D-company.
Along with Shaikh, the agency had also arrested his brother, Arif Bhaijaan, and gangster Chhota Shakeel’s brother-in-law, Mohammad Salim Qureshi, alias Salim Fruit, under Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), and relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
READ | Threat to flights: 16 cases registered in Delhi likely to be transferred to NIA
The three were accused of playing an active role in extorting huge sums of money in the name of D Company, through property dealings and dispute settlements, to raise funds for terrorist activities.
As per the NIA, Dawood Ibrahim Kaskar, identified as a global terrorist by the UN, controlled his criminal activities in India through his close associates.
The agency claimed that Shaikh was part of the associate group, which had “established a special unit for striking terror in the people of India by attacking eminent personalities in India by using explosive/firearms and other lethal weapons”.
Shaikh’s advocate submitted that no incriminating evidence was found, which shows his association with the D-company.
READ | BJP leader Praveen Nettaru murder case: NIA searches at 16 locations in Karnataka
He argued that invoking UAPA is a misuse of law since there is nothing on record to show that he was involved in planning any terror activity, and the mere recovery of ₹5 lakh is not enough to attract the provisions of UAPA since Shaikh was involved in property-related business and was bound to carry cash.
Special sessions judge BD Shelke, however, observed that a witness statement records that Shaikh had received ₹25 lakh from Chhota Shakeel through hawala.
The court relied on the statement of the witness, who said he had received instructions from a hawala operator called Rashidbhai Mafrania, a Pakistani national based in Dubai, to transfer ₹25 lakh to Shaikh, stating that the money belonged to Chhota Shakeel and needed to be sent to Mumbai on an urgent basis, and rejected the bail plea.
