Delhi High Court grants bail to Kashmir human-rights activist Khuram Parvez in UAPA case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (June 10, 2026) granted bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khuram Parvez in a case under the anti-terror law.

A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja took note of Parvez’s over-four-year incarceration in the case and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon to hold that his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution trumped the restriction on bail under section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Also Read: Global rights bodies call for release of Kashmir-based activist Khurram Parvez

The Bench further observed that having lost his leg in a landmine blast in 2004, the accused is infirm and deserves “special consideration”.

The court asked Mr. Parvez to surrender his passport, not leave Delhi without the trial court’s permission and regularly report to the investigating officer.

Mr. Parvez, the programme coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and the chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on November 22, 2021.

The NIA had alleged that under the guise of human-rights activism, Mr. Parvez conspired with a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative to run a network of overground workers (OGWs) for furthering the activities of the Pakistan-based terrorist organisation and committing terror acts in India.

It had alleged that Mr. Parvez was actively involved in collecting information regarding the movement of Army vehicles near the Line of Control (LoC), road conditions and details of Army camps, structures of the Army, paramilitary and police etc.

The NIA counsel emphasised that Mr. Parvez is a flight risk and had instigated protests after the encounter of Burhan Wani, adding that his past antecedents included five other cases involving similar secessionist and terrorist activities.

The court said the allegations against the accused, though serious, were based on the statement of a co-accused-turned-approver, who claimed to be an NIA informer, and were yet to be tested in trial.