2026 Supreme(Del) 491

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, Ravinder Dudeja, JJ.
Khuram Parvez - Appellant
Versus
National Investigation Agency - Respondent
CRL.A. 1234 of 2024
Decided On : 10-06-2026

Statutory restrictions on bail do not oust constitutional court jurisdiction when trial delays render pre-trial incarceration excessive; the fundamental right to a speedy trial under Article 21 necessitates a balancing of individual liberty against state interests, especially in cases of significant detention periods.

Headnote:(A) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Section 43D(5) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120B, 121, 121A - Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018 - Section 8 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 437(1) - Grant of bail - Prolonged pre-trial incarceration - Balance between statutory restrictions and fundamental right to speedy trial - Constitutional mandate under Article 21 (Paras 52, 54, 55).

(B) Bail jurisprudence - Statutory restrictions on bail under special legislation do not oust the jurisdiction of constitutional courts - The stringency of such provisions tends to melt down where the trial cannot be completed within a reasonable timeframe and the accused has suffered significant pre-trial incarceration (Paras 52, 54).

(C) Infirmity - Physical disability constitutes a relevant factor in bail adjudication, permitting discretionary relief even where statutory bars exists, provided societal and flight risks are mitigated through strict conditions (Paras 24, 73).

Facts of the case:
The appellant filed an appeal against the rejection of a bail application regarding charges of conspiracy and terrorism-related allegations. The appellant, having been in custody for over four years post-registration of the investigation file, sought release on the grounds of prolonged pre-trial detention, lack of progress in the trial, and physical infirmity. The prosecution opposed the bail, citing the gravity of the offences and the statutory bar under anti-terror legislation.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that while statutory provisions for bail are stringent in cases involving national security, they do not function in isolation from constitutional guarantees. Acknowledging that the trial had not reached a meaningful stage after four and a half years of detention, the court determined that the continued deprivation of liberty without the prospect of timely trial completion violated the right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

Issues: Whether the statutory threshold restricting bail under anti-terror legislation is absolute in the face of prolonged pre-trial incarceration and whether significant physical infirmity provides a sufficient ground for judicial intervention.

Ratio Decidendi: Constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail despite statutory restrictions when the duration of incarceration becomes unconscionable and indicates a violation of the fundamental right to liberty and a speedy trial. This analysis involves a contextual assessment of the role of the accused, the stage of proceedings, and the probability of trial conclusion, rather than a mechanical application of legislative restrictive bars.

Result: Appeal allowed; bail granted subject to stringent conditions including surrender of travel documents, restricted mobility, and regular reporting.