Back
Issues Notice on NIA Plea Against Bail for Khurram Parvez, Irfan Mehraj
In a significant development in the protracted legal battle over alleged NGO terror funding in Jammu and Kashmir, the on Monday issued notice on two separate appeals filed by the (NIA) challenging the bail granted to human rights activist Khurram Parvez and Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj. A division bench comprising Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan directed the respondents to file their replies by Tuesday, when the matter will be taken up for further hearing. Crucially, the court declined to pass any interim order staying the bail order, though neither accused has yet been released from judicial custody pending verification of their bail bonds.
The appeals arise from a trial court order passed on Saturday by Principal District and Sessions Judge Pitamber Dutt of the , which granted regular bail to Parvez and Mehraj in a case registered by the NIA in under the (UAPA). The NIA, represented by senior counsel , had earlier in the day mentioned the appeals before a different bench headed by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, seeking an urgent listing. That bench agreed to list the matter the same day, overriding objections from counsel for the accused who had requested a hearing on Tuesday.
The Underlying Allegations and Arrests
The 2020 UAPA case, often referred to as the “NGO terror funding case,” arises from NIA’s investigation into the purported role of certain Valley-based non‑governmental organisations, trusts and societies in raising and channelling funds for terrorist activities. According to the agency, “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 (LeT), (HM) etc.”
Within this broad framework, Khurram Parvez, the coordinator of the (JKCCS), and Irfan Mehraj, who worked as a researcher with the same organisation until March 2022, were arrested and charged with providing material support to terrorist activities. The NIA specifically alleges that Parvez provided “material support” to protesters during the 2016 unrest in Kashmir. Both accused have consistently denied the allegations, and their defence has challenged the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence as well as the application of the stringent bail provisions under .
The Trial Court’s Bail Order
Saturday’s grant of bail by the paved the way for Parvez’s release, as he had already secured bail in a separate UAPA case from the on a previous occasion. The trial court’s detailed reasoning is awaited, but the order was pronounced after hearing arguments on the merits and on the question whether the prosecution had been able to establish a case against the accused within the meaning of the UAPA’s bail restrictions. The fact that the court chose to grant regular bail—as opposed to interim bail—suggests a finding that the NIA’s material did not, at this stage, create a reasonable ground for believing that the accusations were true.
Legal practitioners watching the case note that the UAPA’s bail provisions effectively reverse the ordinary presumption in favour of bail: the court is required to deny bail if, on a perusal of the case diary or the report, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusation is true. The trial court’s apparent conclusion to the contrary is likely to be the central point of contention in the NIA’s appeal.
High Court Proceedings: Urgency and Notice
When the NIA mentioned the matter before the Chief Justice’s bench on Monday morning, it emphasised the gravity of the charges and the need for immediate judicial scrutiny of the trial court’s decision. The bench of Chief Justice Upadhyaya and Justice Karia agreed that the appeals warranted an urgent hearing, deciding to list them the same day.
Later, the appeals were taken up by the bench of Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan. Counsel for Parvez and Mehraj opposed the rushed schedule, arguing that the matter should be heard on Tuesday after the respondents had adequate time to prepare. The court, however, proceeded with issuing notice and fixed the next hearing for Tuesday. Crucially, it did not stay the operation of the trial court’s bail order. This procedural stance—issuing notice without an interim stay—reflects a cautious approach by the High Court, respecting the trial court’s discretion while keeping the door open for a more thorough review once the respondents put in their replies.
Senior advocate , appearing for the NIA, pressed for a stay, contending that the release of the accused could hamper the ongoing investigation and pose a risk to national security. For the respondents, the opposition to an urgent listing was anchored in the principle that bail orders, once passed after a detailed hearing, should not be lightly disturbed on the same day without giving the beneficiaries a fair opportunity to be heard.
Implications for UAPA Jurisprudence
The case holds significant implications for the evolving jurisprudence on bail under the UAPA. Over the past few years, the and various High Courts have grappled with the delicate balance between the state’s security concerns and the liberty of individuals. The benchmark “ true” test has been the subject of much judicial interpretation, with courts increasingly emphasising that it requires a meaningful, though limited, examination of the material on record and not a mere parrot‑like repetition of the prosecution’s allegations.
The ’s eventual ruling on these appeals is likely to contribute to this body of law by clarifying the contours of appellate review over trial court bail decisions in UAPA cases. If the division bench upholds the bail order, it could reinforce the position that the threshold is not automatically satisfied by the mere existence of a chargesheet or the gravity of the alleged offence. Conversely, a reversal could underscore the weight that appellate courts are willing to give to prosecutorial assertions in terror‑funding investigations.
For defence practitioners, the immediate lesson is the importance of meticulously challenging the “ true” finding at the trial stage and, if necessary, fortifying the record during appellate proceedings. Prosecutors, on the other hand, will be keenly observing how the High Court evaluates the link between the activities of the JKCCS and the alleged terrorist groups, as the NIA’s case hinges largely on circumstantial evidence and the interpretation of “material support.”
The Broader Context
The Parvez and Mehraj case is part of a larger set of UAPA prosecutions that have attracted national and international attention. Human rights groups have consistently argued that the sweeping provisions of the UAPA are being used to stifle dissent and target activists and journalists. The NIA, however, maintains that its investigations are strictly evidence‑based and that the law is a necessary tool to combat the financing of terrorism.
The delay in the release of the two men, despite bail orders from both the trial court and, in Parvez’s case, the High Court in another matter, has also drawn focus to the administrative hurdles that often remain after a judicial grant of bail. In this instance, the verification of bail bonds has kept them in custody, a reminder that the fight for liberty does not end with a favourable court order.
Looking Ahead
As the prepares to hear the NIA’s challenge on Tuesday, all eyes will be on whether the division bench considers it necessary to stay the bail order at the very outset or allows the respondents to present their arguments first. The court’s decision on this point will set the tone for the litigation ahead. With the trial court’s detailed order still awaited, a full‑fledged hearing on the merits of the appeal may be deferred until that order is available, making the upcoming listing largely procedural. Nevertheless, the case represents a critical juncture in the ongoing legal discourse on bail, national security, and the rights of the accused under India’s anti‑terror law.
