New Delhi, Oct 30 — The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to grant bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez in a terror conspiracy case.
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale declined to interfere with the High Court's order granting relief to Parvez, who has been in custody for nearly five years.
Senior advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for Parvez, submitted before the apex court that his client has a prosthetic leg and has already undergone incarceration of almost five years.
He further informed the Justice Sundresh-led Bench that the framing of charges in the case had been deferred after the NIA sought time to file a supplementary chargesheet.
The NIA had approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi High Court's June 10 order granting bail to Parvez in the case registered under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Parvez has been in custody since November 2021 in connection with the alleged larger conspiracy linked to Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The NIA has accused him of being involved in terror funding, recruitment of overground workers, collecting sensitive information concerning security forces and promoting separatist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.
The Delhi High Court, while granting bail, had observed that Parvez's prolonged incarceration of over four and a half years and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding in the near future warranted his release despite the stringent restrictions under the UAPA.
A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja had set aside the trial court's December 13, 2024, order rejecting his bail plea. It had taken into account that the trial was still at the stage of arguments on framing of charges and that the prosecution intended to examine 197 witnesses if charges were framed. It had observed that the right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution had to be balanced against the restrictions imposed under 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," the Justice Chawla-led Bench had said.
The High Court had also considered Parvez's physical infirmity, noting that he had lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004. The prosecution case against him was also primarily based on the statement of co-accused Muneer Ahmad Kataria, who subsequently turned approver, the High Court had recorded.
It observed that the allegations made through the approver's statement were yet to be tested during the trial and refrained from expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.
While granting relief, the High Court had imposed stringent conditions, including furnishing a personal bond of Rs 2 lakh with two sureties, surrendering his passport, restricting his movements outside Delhi without permission and reporting periodically to the investigating officer. It had also directed Parvez not to influence witnesses, comment publicly on the merits of the case or engage in any activity prejudicial to public order or the integrity of the trial.