Delhi HC Grants Bail to Khuram Parvez in NIA-UAPA Case After Over Four Years in Custody
The Delhi High Court set aside the trial court's bail refusal, holding that prolonged incarceration and slim trial prospects outweighed the Section 43D(5) UAPA bar for the Kashmiri human rights activist.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja, on 10 June 2026 set aside the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, which had rejected bail to Khuram Parvez, the accused No. 1 in NIA case RC No. 30/2021/NIA/DLI. Parvez, described in the charge-sheet as the Programme Coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and Chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances (AFAD), has been in custody since his arrest on 22 November 2021. The bench found that his Article 21 rights, combined with his physical infirmity, tipped the balance in favour of release, even as it expressly declined to express any opinion on the merits of the allegations against him.
The FIR, the Charge-Sheet, and the Allegations Against Parvez
The case originates from an FIR registered on 6 November 2021 at Police Station NIA, New Delhi, under Sections 120B, 121 and 121A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 17, 18, 18B, 38 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The Ministry of Home Affairs had directed the NIA to investigate inputs about Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) establishing a network of over-ground workers (OGWs) across India. Parvez was not named in the FIR; his name surfaced during investigation.
The NIA filed its first charge-sheet on 13 May 2022 against seven accused persons, including Parvez. The prosecution's case against him, as set out in the charge-sheet and the supplementary charge-sheet filed on 15 July 2025, rests on several strands. It is alleged that Parvez recruited Muneer Ahmad Kataria (A-2) as an OGW for the LeT and personally facilitated his contact with Hyder@Ali@Yusuf, identified as a Pakistan-based LeT handler. Kataria is alleged to have in turn recruited Arshid Ahmad Tonch (A-3).
The prosecution further alleges that Parvez, under the guise of human rights activism, collected intelligence on Army vehicle movements near the Line of Control, road conditions, army camp details, and the identities of officers involved in militancy operations. Documents titled “High-Ranking Perpetrators” and “Structure of Army, Rashtriya Rifles” were recovered from the JKCCS office. Visiting cards of a spokesperson of Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) were also found there. The prosecution alleges that Parvez met Syed Salauddin, Amir of HM and a designated terrorist, during visits to Pakistan in 2007 and 2015.
Separately, it is alleged that Parvez instigated protests following the encounter of Burhan Wani in 2016, delivered speeches including slogans such as “Go Back Go Back India”, and distributed Azad Kashmir flags to protestors. He is also alleged to have negotiated the payment of Rs. 1,50,000 to Arvind Digvijay Negi (A-7), a Superintendent of Police, via Kataria, to secure the release of digital devices seized by the NIA in an earlier case, RC-37/2020/NIA/DLI. Parvez has been charge-sheeted under Sections 120B and 121A IPC, Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018, and Sections 13, 18, 18B, 38 and 39 of the UAPA.
During the pendency of the appeal, Kataria was granted approver status by the trial court on 2 July 2025. In his statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, he stated that he had known Parvez since 2015, that in 2020 Parvez introduced him to Hyder@Ali@Yusuf describing him as the Chief Operating Commander of the LeT (J&K module), and that Parvez paid him Rs. 1,50,000 to pass on to Negi for the release of the seized devices.
The Trial Court's Refusal and the Impugned Order
The Additional Sessions Judge rejected Parvez's bail application by order dated 13 December 2024, finding the allegations against him prima facie true. The trial court relied on WhatsApp chats between Parvez and Kataria as showing an attempt to bribe Negi, on evidence of Parvez having introduced Kataria to Hyder@Ali@Yusuf, and on evidence of Parvez promoting the cause of a separate Kashmir through speeches and flag distribution during the post-Burhan Wani protests. Parvez challenged that order before the High Court under Section 21(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
The Legal Framework: Section 43D(5) UAPA and the Constitutional Tension
Section 43D(5) of the UAPA bars release on bail of a person accused of offences under Chapters IV and VI of the Act if, on a perusal of the case diary or the charge-sheet, the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is prima facie true. The provision is the central battleground in this appeal.
The bench set out the governing framework from two Supreme Court decisions. In Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, (2021) 3 SCC 713, the Supreme Court held that the statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) do not oust the ability of constitutional courts to grant bail on grounds of violation of Part III of the Constitution, and that the rigours of such provisions will melt down where there is no likelihood of trial being completed within a reasonable time and the period of incarceration has exceeded a substantial part of the prescribed sentence. The Supreme Court also observed that Section 43D(5) is comparatively less stringent than Section 37 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, in that it does not require the court to be satisfied that the accused is prima facie not guilty.
The bench then considered Gulfisha Fatima v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), 2026 SCC OnLine SC 10, in which the Supreme Court examined the principled approach to be adopted when delay and prolonged incarceration are invoked as grounds for bail in UAPA prosecutions. The Supreme Court in that case held that delay cannot be treated as a solitary determinant and that the constitutional inquiry is not into guilt but into whether continued detention remains constitutionally permissible in the circumstances. It framed the correct question as how Article 21 is to be applied where Parliament has expressly conditioned the grant of bail in relation to offences alleged to implicate national security, requiring “disciplined judicial scrutiny that gives due regard to both.” The Supreme Court also held that the inquiry under Section 43D(5) must be accused-specific, directed to the role and attribution of the individual, and is not a forum for evaluating defences or conducting a mini-trial.
How the Bench Reasoned
The bench acknowledged the gravity of the allegations. It noted the approver's statement, the WhatsApp chats, the material recovered from the JKCCS office, the visits to Pakistan, and the allegations of incitement during the Burhan Wani protests. It did not dismiss these as lacking any prima facie weight.
However, the bench identified several countervailing factors. Parvez has been in custody for more than four years. The trial is at the stage of framing of charges, and there are more than 190 witnesses to be examined. There is no realistic prospect of the trial concluding within a reasonable time.
On the defence submissions, the bench took note of the argument that the two reports — the “Structures of Violence Report” published in 2015 and the “Alleged Perpetrators” report published in 2012 — were publicly available on the JKCCS website and that the information in them was gathered through RTI and other open sources. It noted the submission that the visits to Pakistan were on valid visas and in the public domain. It noted that the detention order passed against Parvez in 2016 under the Public Safety Act, 1978 on account of the Burhan Wani protests had been quashed by the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in H.C.P No. 297/16 on 25 November 2016. It noted the submission that the WhatsApp chats, read carefully, could indicate that it was Kataria who was seeking a bribe from Parvez on behalf of Negi, rather than Parvez initiating the corrupt arrangement.
The bench was careful to state that it was not adjudicating on these defences. It recorded that the allegations and the defence “must be tested against the long period of incarceration of the appellant and the fact that there is no likelihood of the trial ending soon as also against the yardstick of bail being the rule, while denial thereof being an exception.”
On the question of parity with co-accused, the bench distinguished the position of Zafar Abbas (A-4), whose bail appeal had been dismissed by the Delhi High Court in Zafar Abbas @ Jaffar v. National Investigation Agency, 2025:DHC:286-DB, and whose special leave petition had been dismissed by the Supreme Court on 17 April 2025. The bench found that the allegations against Abbas were materially different from those against Parvez.
On infirmity, the bench accepted that Parvez lost his leg in April 2004 when his vehicle was struck by a landmine blast during an election monitoring exercise in Kupwara, and that he has worn a prosthetic leg since. The bench held that this physical condition deserved special consideration, even though the NIA had argued that the infirmity had not prevented Parvez from engaging in field work and foreign travel.
Conditions of Bail
The bench imposed thirteen conditions on the grant of bail, several of which reflect the NIA's submission that Parvez poses a flight risk and a risk of evidence tampering and witness influence.
Parvez is required to execute a personal bond of Rs. 2,00,000 with two sureties in the like amount. He must surrender his passport before the trial court, or file an affidavit stating he does not hold one. He is confined to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and cannot travel outside without prior permission of the trial court, with any application for travel required to disclose destination, duration, purpose, and contact details.
He is permitted to use only one mobile phone or landline number, which must remain switched on at all times. He must furnish his residential address, contact number, and email address to the Investigating Officer and the trial court, and give at least seven days' prior notice of any change. He must appear before the trial court on each date of hearing unless exempted.
He is prohibited from directly or indirectly contacting, influencing, threatening, or communicating with any prosecution witness, protected witness, complainant, or person acquainted with the facts of the case. He is prohibited from tampering with evidence, electronic material, records, devices, or documents relating to the case. He is prohibited from making any public statement — through print, electronic, or social media — touching upon the merits of the case, the evidence, the witnesses, or the pending trial. He is prohibited from participating in any activity that may prejudice public order or the integrity of the trial, and from uploading, sharing, disseminating, or circulating any anti-national material on any social media platform. He must report to the Investigating Officer once every fortnight, or at such interval as the trial court may direct.
The bench clarified that the release is subject to any order passed in another case in which Parvez may be detained or otherwise in custody in accordance with law. It also made clear that the observations in the judgment shall not be construed as observations on the merits of the case.
Order
The impugned order dated 13 December 2024 of the Additional Sessions Judge-03, N.D.D. Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, rejecting bail in NIA/4/2022 titled National Investigation Agency v. Khuram Parvez @ Khurram and Ors., is set aside. CRL.A. 1234/2024 is disposed of. Parvez is directed to be released on bail in RC No. 30/2021/NIA/DLI subject to the conditions set out above. A copy of the judgment is to be sent to the trial court and the concerned Jail Superintendent.