Supreme Court Upholds Bail for Kashmiri Activist Khurram Parvez Amid Terror Charges
Supreme Court Decision on Khurram Parvez's Bail
File image of the Supreme Court of India. (Photo: X)
New Delhi, Oct 30: On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected a petition from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) that contested the Delhi High Court's decision to grant bail to Khurram Parvez, a Kashmiri human rights activist, involved in a terror conspiracy case.
A bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale chose not to intervene with the High Court's ruling that provided relief to Parvez, who has been in detention for nearly five years.
During the proceedings, senior advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, representing Parvez, informed the apex court that his client has a prosthetic leg and has already served almost five years in custody.
Mir also mentioned to the bench led by Justice Sundresh that the process of framing charges had been postponed as the NIA requested additional time to submit a supplementary chargesheet.
The NIA had approached the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court's June 10 ruling that granted bail to Parvez under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Parvez has been in custody since November 2021, linked to an alleged broader conspiracy involving the Pakistan-based terrorist group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The NIA has accused him of participating in terror financing, recruiting operatives, gathering sensitive information about security forces, and fostering separatist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
In its bail decision, the Delhi High Court noted Parvez's lengthy detention of over four and a half years and the improbability of a swift trial, which justified his release despite the strict provisions of the UAPA.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja overturned the trial court's December 13, 2024, order that denied his bail application. They considered that the trial was still in the argument stage regarding the framing of charges and that the prosecution planned to call 197 witnesses if charges were established. They emphasized that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution must be weighed against the limitations set by Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.
"The appellant's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India need to be balanced and may even trump the restriction imposed under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA," stated the bench led by Justice Chawla.
The High Court also took into account Parvez's physical condition, noting that he lost a leg due to a landmine explosion in 2004. The prosecution's case largely relied on the testimony of co-accused Muneer Ahmad Kataria, who later became an approver, as recorded by the High Court.
It was noted that the claims made through the approver's testimony had yet to be validated during the trial, and the court refrained from commenting on the case's merits.
In granting bail, the High Court imposed strict conditions, including a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two sureties, surrendering his passport, limiting his movements outside Delhi without prior approval, and requiring regular check-ins with the investigating officer. Additionally, Parvez was instructed not to influence witnesses, publicly discuss the case's merits, or engage in any activities that could disrupt public order or the trial's integrity.