New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed a plea filed by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) challenging the bail granted to human rights activist Khuram Parvez in a case under the anti-terror law.
Parvez, programme coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and chairperson of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances, was arrested by the NIA on November 22, 2021.
The NIA had alleged that under the guise of human-rights activism, Parvez conspired with a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative to run a network of overground workers for furthering the activities of the Pakistan-based terrorist organisation and committing terror acts in India.
Parvez has denied the allegations.
The Delhi High Court had on June 10 granted him bail in the case.
The NIA’s plea challenging the high court verdict came up for hearing on Friday before a bench of justices M M Sundresh and Prasanna B Varale.
The bench refused to interfere with the high court judgment.
In its verdict, the high court had taken note of Parvez’s over-four-year incarceration in the case and the unlikelihood of the trial concluding soon to hold that his rights under Article 21 of the Constitution trumped the restriction on bail under section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The high court had further observed that having lost his leg in a landmine blast in 2004, the accused was infirm and deserves “special consideration”.
It had set aside a trial court’s December 2024 order rejecting Parvez’s bail plea.
The NIA alleged that Parvez was “actively involved in collecting information regarding the movement of Army vehicles near the Line of Control, road conditions and details of Army camps, structures of the Army, paramilitary and police etc.”
The NIA has listed Parvez in a charge-sheet for several alleged offences, including under sections 13 (punishment for unlawful activities), 18 (punishment for conspiracy etc.), 18B (punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act), 38 (offence relating to membership of a terrorist organisation) and 39 (offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation) of the UAPA and other sections under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.
Parvez’s counsel had contended before the high court that mere statements against him without conclusive evidence did not make out a prima-facie case under the UAPA.
The lawyer had submitted that information regarding Army structures etc was collated and published in 2015 in a report, which was a legitimate human-rights documentation in public interest and most of the information was collected through RTI.
