The Supreme Court on Friday, 30 October 2026, dismissed a plea by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the Delhi High Court's decision to grant bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez in a terror conspiracy case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and P.B. Varale declined to interfere with the High Court's order, allowing Parvez — who has spent nearly five years in custody — to remain on bail.

Background and Charges

Khurram Parvez has been in custody since November 2021 in connection with an alleged larger conspiracy linked to the Pakistan-based terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT). The NIA has accused him of involvement in terror funding, recruitment of overground workers, collecting sensitive information concerning security forces, and promoting separatist activities in Jammu and Kashmir.

The prosecution's case rests primarily on the statement of co-accused Muneer Ahmad Kataria, who subsequently turned approver. The Delhi High Court had noted that the allegations through the approver's statement were yet to be tested at trial, and refrained from expressing any view on the merits of the case.

What the High Court Ruled

A division bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja had on 10 June set aside a trial court order dated 13 December 2024 that had rejected Parvez's bail plea. The High Court observed that Parvez's incarceration of over four and a half years, combined with the remote likelihood of the trial concluding in the near future, warranted his release despite the stringent restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA.

The bench had noted that the trial was still at the stage of arguments on framing of charges, and that the prosecution intended to examine 197 witnesses if charges were formally framed — signalling a prolonged trial ahead. It held that Article 21 of the Constitution, guaranteeing the right to personal liberty, had to be balanced against the UAPA's restrictions. 'The appellant's rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India need to be balanced and may even trump the restriction imposed under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA,' the bench had stated.

The High Court also took into account Parvez's physical condition — he lost a leg in a landmine blast in 2004 and uses a prosthetic limb.

Arguments Before the Supreme Court

Senior advocate Tanveer Ahmed Mir, appearing for Parvez, submitted before the apex court that his client has a prosthetic leg and has undergone incarceration of almost five years. He further informed the bench that the framing of charges had been deferred after the NIA sought time to file a supplementary chargesheet — a detail that further underlined the delayed progression of the trial.

The Supreme Court, after hearing the NIA's challenge, declined to interfere with the High Court's bail order.

Bail Conditions Imposed

While granting relief, the Delhi High Court had imposed stringent conditions: Parvez must furnish a personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two sureties, surrender his passport, and restrict his movements outside Delhi without prior permission. He is also required to report periodically to the investigating officer and has been directed not to influence witnesses, comment publicly on the merits of the case, or engage in any activity prejudicial to public order or the integrity of the trial.

Broader Significance

The ruling adds to a series of higher-court interventions in long-pending UAPA cases where prolonged pre-trial detention has been weighed against constitutional liberty guarantees. Notably, the Supreme Court's refusal to disturb the bail reinforces a growing judicial recognition that indefinite incarceration pending trial — particularly where the trial's conclusion is not foreseeable — can itself constitute a disproportionate curtailment of fundamental rights. The case will now proceed to the charge-framing stage, with the trial's timeline remaining uncertain given the large number of witnesses the prosecution intends to examine.