New Delhi [India], June 10 (ANI): The Delhi High Court on Wednesday granted bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez in a terror-conspiracy case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA), holding that his nearly four-and-a-half years of incarceration, coupled with the slow progress of trial proceedings, warranted his release despite the stringent restrictions on bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Ravinder Dudeja allowed Parvez's appeal challenging a December 13, 2024, order of the Special NIA Court, Patiala House Courts, which had refused him bail.

The case stems from an NIA investigation initiated in November 2021 into an alleged conspiracy involving the Pakistan-based terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and its network of over-ground workers (OGWs) in India.

According to the prosecution, Parvez, who served as Program Coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), was allegedly involved in recruiting individuals for the network and facilitating contact between a co-accused and a Pakistan-based LeT handler identified as Hyder alias Ali alias Yusuf.

The NIA further alleged that, under the guise of human rights activism, Parvez collected information relating to Indian security forces, maintained dossiers of officers involved in militancy operations, and engaged in activities aimed at supporting separatist causes in Jammu and Kashmir.

The agency also accused him of attempting to influence an NIA investigation through illegal gratification paid to a former police officer.

Parvez denied the allegations, contending that much of the material relied upon by the NIA consisted of publicly available reports and documentation produced as part of legitimate human rights work.

The High Court extensively discussed the evolving jurisprudence on bail under the UAPA and the constitutional guarantee of personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution.

The Bench noted that Parvez had been in custody since 22 November 2021, had already spent almost 4 1/2 years in jail, and that the case was still at the stage of arguments on charge. The Court was informed that the prosecution proposed to examine 197 witnesses, indicating that the trial was unlikely to conclude in the near future.

Referring to recent Supreme Court decisions, including Union of India v K A Najeeb, the High Court observed that statutory restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot completely override constitutional protections where an accused faces prolonged incarceration, and there is little prospect of an early conclusion of trial.

While acknowledging that the allegations against Parvez were serious, the Bench observed that the prosecution's case was substantially based on the statement of a co-accused who had subsequently become an approver. The Court noted that the witness's testimony had yet to be tested during trial.

The Court also recorded Parvez's contention that several documents relied upon by the prosecution, including reports concerning military structures and alleged perpetrators, had been publicly available for years and were published on the JKCCS website. The prosecution did not dispute that those reports were publicly accessible.

The Bench further noted that some of the allegations related to visits to Pakistan undertaken in 2007 and 2015, which Parvez maintained were open and lawful visits.

Emphasising the importance of balancing national security concerns with individual liberty, the Court stated that the allegations and the defence raised by the appellant had to be assessed against the backdrop of his prolonged incarceration and the constitutional principle that liberty cannot be denied indefinitely pending trial. The Bench observed that Parvez's rights under Article 21 required due consideration and could, in appropriate circumstances, outweigh the restrictions contained in Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The Court also took note of Parvez's physical condition, observing that he had lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004 and was an infirm person entitled to special consideration while deciding his bail plea.

After considering the length of custody, the stage of trial, the nature of evidence, and the constitutional principles governing prolonged pre-trial detention, the Delhi High Court allowed Parvez's appeal and directed his release on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Court. (ANI)