Delhi High Court grants bail to Kashmir human-rights activist Khuram Parvez in UAPA case

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, granted bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khuram Parvez in a case under the anti-terrorism law.

A Bench of Justices Navin Chawla and Ravinder Dudeja noted that Parvez had spent more than four years in prison in the case and the imminent conclusion of the trial was unlikely to rule that Parvez’s rights under Article 21 of the Constitution prevailed over the bail restriction under section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

Also Read: Global human rights organizations call for release of Kashmir-based activist Khurram Parvez

The court also observed that the defendant, who lost his leg in a mine explosion in 2004, was disabled and deserved “special attention”.

The court asked Mr. Parvez to surrender his passport, not to leave Delhi without the court’s permission and to report regularly to the investigating officer.

Mr. Parvez, program coordinator of Jammu and Kashmir Civil Society Coalition and president of the Asian Federation Against Involuntary Disappearances, was arrested by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) on November 22, 2021.

The NIA had alleged that Mr. Parvez, in the garb of human rights activism, conspired with a Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) operative to manage a network of overground workers (OGWs) to further the activities of the Pakistan-based terrorist outfit and carry out terrorist acts in India.

Mr. Parvez has detailed information about movements of Army vehicles near the Line of Control (LoC), road conditions and details of Army camps, Army structures, paramilitary forces and police etc. It was alleged that he actively participated in gathering information about.

The NIA lawyer emphasized that Mr. Parvez was a flight risk and had incited protests following his encounter with Burhan Wani, adding that his past past cases included five other cases involving similar separatist and terrorist activities.

The court said that although the allegations against the accused were serious, they were based on the statement of the co-accused-approver, who claimed to be an NIA informant and was yet to be tested in the trial.