Synopsis

The appellant (Khuram Parvez), a Kashmiri human rights activist, was arrested on November 22, 2021, in an NIA case alleging conspiracy with Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operatives to recruit over-ground workers, collect intelligence on security forces, and propagate separatist ideology. His bail application was rejected by the trial court. The High Court, after noting prolonged incarceration of over 4½ years, the trial still at the stage of framing of charge with 197 witnesses to be examined, and the infirmity of the appellant (prosthetic leg), granted bail. The court held that while Section 43D(5) imposes a statutory bar where allegations are prima facie true, the constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21 may override such restrictions when incarceration is unduly prolonged and trial is unlikely to conclude soon. The judgment also considered the low conviction rate under UAPA (94-98% acquittal nationally) and the fact that the principal evidence against the appellant was the statement of a co-accused turned approver, which remains untested.

1. Heading of the judgment

High court of delhi at new delhi

Criminal appeal no. 1234 of 2024

Khuram parvez (appellant) vs. National investigation agency (respondent)

Coram: hon'ble mr. justice navin chawla and hon'ble mr. justice ravinder dudeja

Core Law: Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Section 43D(5) – Bail restrictions for offences under Chapters IV and VI – Interplay between statutory embargo and constitutional right to speedy trial under Article 21.

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Navin Chawla and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ravinder Dudeja (Division Bench)
Date of Judgment: June 10, 2026 (Reserved on May 8, 2026)
Case No.: Crl.A. No. 1234 of 2024
Citation: 2026:DHC:5092-DB

2. Legal framework

Major laws and provisions involved:

• Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 – Sections 13, 17, 18, 18B, 38, 39, 40 (substantive offences); Section 43D(5) (bail restrictions for Chapters IV and VI)

• National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 – Section 21(4) (appeal against bail rejection)

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 437(1) proviso (bail for infirm accused); Section 164 (statement of approver)

• Constitution of India – Article 21 (right to speedy trial)

Subject matter of the judgment:

Whether an accused charged under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA can be released on bail despite the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5) (which requires the court to deny bail if allegations are prima facie true), on the ground of prolonged pre-trial incarceration, delay in trial, infirmity of the accused, and the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

Key legal principles applied:

• Section 43D(5) threshold: The court must examine whether the prosecution material, taken at face value, discloses the essential statutory ingredients of

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.