Delhi High Court Refuses To Stay Bail Granted To Activist Khurram Parvez, Journalist Irfan Mehraj In UAPA Case

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday refused to stay the trial court order granting bail to human rights activist Khurram Parvez and Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj in a 2020 UAPA case. [2026 LiveLaw (Del) 668]

Mehraj and Parvez were accused in the alleged NGO Terror funding case registered by NIA in October 2020.

A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan refused to stay the grant of bail but observed that prima facie, the trial court failed to come to any conclusion in terms of the proviso of Section 43D (5) of UAPA.

The Court has now imposed stricter bail conditions on the accused. Today's development has paved way for release of Parvez from jail. He was granted bail recently in another UAPA case by a coordinate bench.

The NIA has challenged the trial court order passed by Principal and Sessions Judge Pitamber Dutt of Patiala House Courts on July 18.

With the impugned bail order, the Trial Court paved had way for release of Khurram Parvez. He was granted bail recently in another UAPA case by the High Court.

Senior Advocate Madhav Khurana appearing for NIA submitted that the trial court has not made any observations or findings in terms of the proviso in question and that the allegations levelled against the accused are serious in nature.

He said that their release would be contrary to national interest and could seriously jeopardise national security.

On the other hand, Senior Advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, along with Advocates Swati and Kartik Venu appeared for Parvez whereas Advocate Jawahar Raja represented Mehraj.

They argued that it is only in extreme circumstances that a bail order, which is mechanical, can be interfered with.

It was argued that the trial court considered all the allegations against both the accused and granted bail to them under stringent conditions.

Mir also referred to the coordinate bench decision granting bail to Parvez in a case where allegations against him were overlapping.

The Court observed that at prima facie stage, notice would liable to be issued in the appal as the trial court failed to come to any conclusion in terms of proviso to Section 43D (5) of UAPA.

Perusing the chargesheet, the Bench said that there is documentary evidence which ought to have been discussed in the impugned order.

“The trial court is a not constitutional court and ought to prima facie strictly go by the statute. Absence of any findings, the matter would require consideration of this court. However since this is an order where bail was granted by trial court under various condition, without opinion on the merits and bearing in mind serious nature of allegations, following further conditions are imposed,” the Court said.

The Bench directed both accused to meet the IO twice in a week. They have also been directed not to indulge in similar activities or with groups of organizations like JKCCS or allied organizations.

Both accused are free to interact with close friends, relatives and family members but cannot indulge in communication or meetings with anyone named in chargesheet.

Trial court proceedings are directed to continue. The matters will now be heard on August 23. 

Mehraj was a researcher with the JKCCS till March 2022. Parvez was the coordinator of the rights group and has been accused by the NIA of providing "material support" to protestors in Kashmir during the 2016 agitation.

NIA has said that involvement of some valley-based NGOs, Trusts and Societies "in funding of terror related activities is being probed" in the 2020 case.

“Some NGOs, both registered as well as un-registered, have come to notice collecting funds domestically and abroad under the cover of doing charity and various welfare activities, including Public Health, Education etc. But some of these organisations have developed links with proscribed terrorist organizations, such as Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) etc," the NIA has claimed.

Title: NIA v. Khurram Parvez and other connected matter

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Del) 668