The Delhi High Court granted bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez, who had been in NIA custody since November 2021. Setting aside the trial court’s December 2024 order, the Court allowed his appeal and directed his release subject to conditions.
The Delhi High Court granted bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez, who has remained in custody for more than four years following his arrest by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in November 2021.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed Parvez’s appeal against a trial court order that had rejected his request for bail in December 2024. By doing so, the High Court set aside the earlier decision and paved the way for his release, subject to conditions imposed by the Court.
While pronouncing the verdict, the Bench observed:
“We have granted bail, subject to various conditions.”
Background of the Case:
Khurram Parvez is a prominent human rights activist from Jammu and Kashmir who has been associated with documenting human rights issues and advocating for civil liberties in the region for several years.
ALSO READ: 2019 UAPA Amendment| ‘Always Approach High Court First’: Supreme Court
Over the years, Parvez has worked with various human rights organizations and has been involved in initiatives relating to conflict-related rights violations, enforced disappearances, and access to justice for affected communities.
His arrest in 2021 attracted widespread national and international attention due to his long-standing involvement in human rights advocacy and the serious nature of the allegations levelled against him under India’s anti-terror laws.
The case against Parvez stems from an investigation conducted by the National Investigation Agency into an alleged terror-funding and conspiracy network operating in Jammu and Kashmir. According to the NIA, the investigation sought to uncover activities allegedly linked to funding terrorism, facilitating unlawful activities, and supporting organizations accused of engaging in anti-national operations.
On November 22, 2021, NIA officials arrested Parvez from Srinagar as part of the investigation. Following his arrest, he was repeatedly remanded to police custody for interrogation as investigators continued collecting evidence and examining the allegations against him.
After a series of custody extensions, Parvez was eventually remanded to judicial custody on February 25, 2022. Since then, he has remained incarcerated while the investigation and subsequent legal proceedings continued.
Charges Invoked Under UAPA
The prosecution invoked provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), India’s principal anti-terror legislation. The UAPA contains stringent bail provisions that significantly restrict the grant of bail when courts find prima facie material supporting the accusations.
Because of these provisions, obtaining bail in UAPA cases is often considerably more difficult than in ordinary criminal prosecutions. The law requires courts to undertake a preliminary assessment of the prosecution’s case before considering whether an accused person can be released pending trial. Consequently, many accused persons in UAPA prosecutions remain in custody for prolonged periods while investigations and trials proceed.
Parvez had earlier sought regular bail before the trial court. However, on December 17, 2024, the trial court rejected his application, accepting the prosecution’s contention that the allegations against him were serious and that the statutory restrictions governing bail under the UAPA continued to apply. The trial court concluded that the material placed before it did not justify his release at that stage of the proceedings.
Aggrieved by the decision, Parvez approached the Delhi High Court seeking relief.
Appeal Before the Delhi High Court
Before the High Court, Parvez challenged the findings recorded by the trial court and argued that continued incarceration was unjustified. The appeal required the Court to examine the evidence available on record, the stage of the proceedings, and the legal principles governing bail under the UAPA.
The Bench heard extensive submissions from both sides before reserving its verdict. The case attracted considerable attention because it raised important questions concerning pre-trial detention, personal liberty, and the application of anti-terror laws in cases involving human rights activists.
After considering the submissions and material on record, the Division Bench decided to overturn the trial court’s decision. The High Court set aside the order dated December 17, 2024, which had denied bail to Parvez.
Announcing the decision, the Bench stated:
“We have granted bail, subject to various conditions.”
While the Court did not elaborate on the conditions during the brief pronouncement, such conditions in UAPA cases typically include restrictions relating to travel, communication with witnesses, reporting obligations, and cooperation with ongoing proceedings.
The complete judgment is expected to provide detailed reasoning regarding the legal and factual considerations that persuaded the Court to grant relief.
One notable aspect of the case is the length of time Parvez spent in custody before obtaining bail. From his arrest in November 2021 until the High Court’s order in June 2026, he remained incarcerated for more than four years. The issue of prolonged pre-trial detention has increasingly become a subject of judicial scrutiny in cases involving special statutes such as the UAPA. Indian courts, including the Supreme Court, have in recent years considered whether extended incarceration without the conclusion of trial may justify granting bail even in cases governed by stringent statutory restrictions.
The order is important not only because of the identity of the accused and the nature of the allegations but also because it reflects the continuing judicial examination of prolonged detention in anti-terror cases. By setting aside the trial court’s order and directing Parvez’s release subject to conditions, the High Court has reaffirmed that bail applications under special statutes remain subject to judicial scrutiny on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE