The Supreme Court has dismissed the NIA plea against Khurram Parvez bail in a UAPA case, refusing to interfere with the Delhi High Court order that released the Kashmiri human rights activist in view of his nearly five years in custody.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, October 30, dismissed a special leave petition filed by the National Investigation Agency challenging the bail granted by the Delhi High Court to Kashmiri activist Khurram Parvez in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged terror funding [National Investigation Agency v. Khuram Parvej].
A Bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale declined to interfere with the High Court’s order, taking into account the long period the accused has spent in custody.
What was argued
Additional Solicitor General Raja Thakare appeared for the NIA. Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for Parvez as respondent and caveator, told the Bench that his client has a prosthetic leg and has been in custody for nearly five years. He also submitted that the framing of charges has been deferred because the NIA, on August 19, sought time to file a supplementary chargesheet.
The Bench dismissed the agency’s petition, leaving the High Court’s bail order and its conditions in place.
Background
Parvez was arrested from Srinagar on November 22, 2021. The NIA’s case is that a network linked to the banned organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba recruited Over Ground Workers, gathered information on security installations and facilitated terror funding. Parvez denies the allegations, which remain to be tested at trial; charges have not yet been framed.
In June 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed his appeal against a Special NIA Court order refusing bail. The High Court held that his prolonged incarceration of nearly four and a half years, the slow progress of the trial and his right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution warranted release, and granted bail subject to conditions. The NIA then approached the Supreme Court.
Why the order matters
Section 43D(5) of the UAPA bars bail where the accusation appears prima facie true, which makes release in UAPA cases rare. Courts have, however, repeatedly held that the statutory bar must yield where an undertrial has spent years in custody with no early end to the trial in sight, since indefinite pre-trial detention would defeat the right to liberty under Article 21. By declining to disturb the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court has left that reasoning in place in a case where charges are yet to be framed nearly five years after arrest.
The dismissal is not a finding on the merits of the accusations. The NIA’s case remains to be proved at trial, and Parvez is entitled to the presumption of innocence.
Case Title: National Investigation Agency v. Khuram Parvej [SLP (Crl) No. 17798 of 2026]
Bench: Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice P.B. Varale, Supreme Court of India
Date of Order: October 30, 2026
Appearances: ASG Raja Thakare for the NIA; Senior Advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir with Advocates Swati Khanna, Mohd Yasin, Raminder Kaur, Irfan Ali and Sidharth Kaushik for the respondent