National Investigation Agency v. Khurram Parvez

(vii) JKCCS organized many programs and events supporting secession of Kashmir. Persons who attended the programs also included members from Jammu & Kashmir Liberation Front Dukhtaran-e- Millat (DeM) etc. which are both banned terrorist outfits; (viii)Accused No. 1 is alleged to have met Hizbul Mujahideen designated terrorist Syed Sallahuddin. He met various other terror organization including Al-Badr, Lashkar-e-Toiba (LeT), All Party Hurriyat Conference (APHC), Pakistan Occupied Kashmir Faction and APHC (PoK) convenor - Farooq Rehmani.

(ix) Accused No. 2 worked as researcher-volunteer with JKCCS from early 2016 and is described as a close associate of Accused No. 1.

(x) Accused No. 2 is a part of the larger conspiracy promoting the secessionist agenda for Kashmir.

(xi) Accused No. 2 was in contact with Hizbul Mujahideen commanders including Accused No. 3 and other ISI-affiliated individuals.

(xii) Accused No. 2 is associated with several international NGOs said to promote Kashmir's secession.

(xiii) Accused No. 2 allegedly played a pivotal role in instigating youth toward stone-pelting, on directions from Accused No. 1, who was working on the APHC's broader agenda.

(xiv) Accused No. 2 assisted Accused No. 1 in receiving funds from the

(xv) Accused No. 2 was involved in distributing these funds to stonepelters, Hizbul Mujahideen Over-Ground Workers, and families of killed terrorists as compensation for allegiance.

9. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that both the Respondents had applied for regular bail before the ld. Trial Court under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. read with Section 43D of the UAPA. The said bail applications have been decided by the ld. Trial Court and vide the impugned orders, regular bail has been granted to the Respondents by imposing several conditions in the following terms:

10. The said order is stated to have been pronounced on Saturday, 18th July, 2026 and thereafter these appeals have been filed by the NIA.

11. Yesterday i.e., on Monday, 20th July, 2026, these matters were urgently mentioned by the NIA and the same were listed before this Court for consideration. The submissions of both parties were partly heard on the interim relief for stay of the impugned orders sought by the NIA.

12. The submission of Mr. Madhav Khurana, ld. Senior Counsel along with Ms. Trisha Mittal, ld. Counsel for the NIA is that the ld. Trial Court has not made any observation or arrived at any finding in terms of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA which requires the ld. Trial Court to come to a prima facie conclusion as to whether the accusations are true or not.

13. It is their submission that the ld. Trial Court has simply proceeded to granting bail primarily on the basis of the fact that the trial is at an early stage and the allegations are only based on oral testimony. In absence of any finding in terms of the proviso under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, it is argued that the impugned orders are untenable.

14. It is also impressed upon the Court that both the Respondents are involved in extremely serious offences as is evident from the chargesheet dated 15th September, 2023. It is stressed by the ld. Senior Counsel that considering the nature of allegations against the Respondents their release on bail would be contrary to national interest and could also seriously jeopardize national security.

15. On the other hand, Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mir, ld. Senior Counsel and Mr. Jawahar Raja, ld. Counsel for the Respondents have submitted that upon the bail order being issued the Respondents are entitled to be released on bail immediately. It is further alleged that it is only under exceptional circumstances that when the bail order is manifestly perverse and mechanical that this Court ought to interfere with the same.

16. It is submitted that the ld. Trial Court has considered all the allegations against the Respondents and has only thereafter granted bail to the Respondents that too under stringent conditions.

17. Mr. Mir, ld. Senior Counsel further submits that once the Respondents have already submitted the bail bonds and the sureties, the non-release of the Respondents would also be contrary to law. Accordingly, it is submitted that the mere verification of bail bonds being adjourned to tomorrow i.e. 22nd July, 2026 cannot attract the prayer for interim relief at the behest of the NIA of holding back their release.

18. Ld. Senior Counsel has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CRL.A. 1234/2024 titled Khuram Parvez vs. National Investigation Agency, arising out of FIR No. RC NO. 30/2021/NIA/DLI where the Respondent - Khurram Parvez has already granted bail on 10th June, 2026. It is submitted that the allegations in the said FIR are overlapping with the present case and till date the NIA has not challenged the said order granting bail.

19. Heard. The Court has considered the matter. On 20th July, 2026 after considering the submissions of the parties notice was issued in the present appeals.

20. The Court has now perused the charge sheet as also the judgement of the Trial Court which clearly reveals that the ld. Trial Court has failed to come to any conclusion in terms of the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, as to the innocence or otherwise of the Respondents. The main finding of the ld. Trial Court in the respective impugned orders reads as under: Impugned Order in CRL.A. 663/2026

21. Thus, the trial court’s reasoning is two-pronged i.e., • that the evidence is based on oral testimony and • further that the trial is likely to be delayed further, as charges are yet to be framed in the matter. However, a perusal of the chargesheet would show that there is in fact documentary evidence which is relied upon by the NIA. Therefore, there ought to have been a discussion in this regard in the impugned orders. The ld. Trial Court is not a Constitutional Court and ought to, in the prima facie opinion of this Court, strictly have gone by the mandate of the statute.

22. Under these circumstances, at the stage of granting bail, this Court would have to consider the mandate of Section 43D(5) of the UAPA and reach a prima facie finding on the allegations raised by the NIA. However, since the impugned orders are orders where bail has been granted by the ld. Trial Court and various conditions have been imposed, this Court is not inclined to stay the operation of the impugned orders.

23. Bearing in mind the serious nature of allegations against the Respondents, without opining on the merits of the matter, at this stage, this Court deems fit to impose the following further conditions for bail:

(i) The accused shall report to Mr. Prabhat Kumar Bajpai, Chief

Investigating Officer (IO) at the NIA Headquarters, Lodhi Road, twice a week, i.e., on every Tuesday and Friday at 11:00 A.M. and after completion of all formalities the accused shall be discharged by 12:00 noon. The IO shall maintain a separate register of attendance with respect to the accused.

(ii) The accused shall not indulge in any activity similar to the activities on the basis of which the present RC No. 37/2020/NIA/DLI stood registered against them under the UAPA and IPC nor shall they associate with or participate in the activities of any group or organisation linked to the subject matter of the present RC, including but not limited to the Jammu & Kashmir Coalition of Civil Societies.

(iii) The accused shall not participate in any programme or address or attend any gathering, rally or meeting pertaining to issues similar to the pending case, whether physically or virtually till conclusion of the trial.

(iv) The accused shall not circulate any post, literature either in electronic form or physical form or circulate any hand bills, posters, banners, etc. in any form whatsoever.

(v) The accused shall not try to establish any communication with coaccused or any other person named in the materials forming part of the present record or involved directly or indirectly in similar activities or make any international call to any person indulging in similar activities as alleged against him, through any mode of communication.

(vi) The accused shall be free to interact with close relatives and family members, however, they shall not indulge in any communication or meetings with any persons/organisations, directly or indirectly, named in the chargesheet in RC-37/2020/NIA/DLI.

24. It is made clear that the above conditions are in addition to the conditions imposed by the ld. Trial Court in the respective impugned orders.

25. The impugned orders dated 18th July, 2026 shall not be cited as a precedent in any other matter as the same are under consideration by this Court.

26. Let reply be filed by the Respondents within two weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

27. Let the electronic copy of the TCR be requisitioned. Upon the same being requisitioned, ld. Counsel for the parties shall obtain the same, upon request, for assistance of this Court.

28. It is made clear that the proceedings before the Trial Court shall continue.

29. List on 24th August, 2026.

30. Dasti.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH JUDGE VIKAS MAHAJAN JUDGE JULY 21, 2026 aj/msh