Also Read - Delhi Police Opposes PIL Alleging Surveillance of Protesters at Jantar Mantar

Specifically, the NIA alleged that Khurram Parvez, who served as the coordinator of a rights organisation, provided material support to protestors during the 2016 Kashmir agitation. Irfan Mehraj, identified as a researcher with the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society until March 2022, was also named in the same FIR. The agency argued that the accused’s roles and the alleged connections to prohibited organisations warranted a stricter approach to bail.

Trial Court’s Reasoning

The trial court, while granting bail, had taken into account the period of incarceration already undergone by the accused, the lack of direct evidence linking them to the commission of a terrorist act, and the possibility of securing their presence during trial through suitable conditions. The order noted that Parvez had previously been granted bail in another UAPA matter by the High Court, which the trial court considered as a factor indicating that stringent custodial measures were not indispensable at that stage.

Also Read - Delhi High Court Upholds Detention of EWS Student After Academic Failure

The trial court further observed that the allegations, while serious, did not automatically justify denial of bail, especially when the accused had cooperated with the investigation and there was no demonstrable risk of flight or obstruction of justice.

High Court’s Observations

The division bench, after hearing the NIA’s preliminary submissions, issued notice to the respondents but refrained from passing any order that would suspend the bail. The court emphasized that the matter required a detailed examination of the rival contentions and that the respondents must be afforded an opportunity to present their case.

Also Read - Supreme Court Advises Against Politicising Ayodhya Ram Temple Donation Theft Probe

The bench clarified that the issuance of notice does not constitute a finding on the merits of the NIA’s appeal. It also noted that the absence of a stay on the bail means that the accused continue to enjoy the benefit of the trial court’s order unless a subsequent order modifies that position.

Implications

The present development underscores the procedural safeguards embedded in bail jurisprudence under the UAPA, where the burden lies on the prosecution to demonstrate compelling reasons for denying bail even after a trial court has granted it. The High Court’s decision to seek a detailed response before considering any interim relief reflects a cautious approach aimed at balancing the liberty of the accused with the investigative imperatives of the agency.

Also Read - Supreme Court Questions BCI's Stand on Enrolment Amid Pending Criminal Cases

The matter is now set for further hearing, during which the court will evaluate the NIA’s arguments concerning alleged terror financing, the role of NGOs, and the sufficiency of the conditions imposed by the trial court to ensure the accused’s availability for trial.