PUDR welcomes the release of Khurram Parvez and Irfan Meharaj on bail but is alarmed at the restrictive and unreasonable bail conditions set forth in the order of the trial court. The NIA has registered two cases against Khurram Parvez, an activist with decades of human rights documentation, campaign and advocacy work with Jammu Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society that also legally represented families of disappeared persons as well as other victims/survivors of crimes committed in Jammu Kashmir. Irfan Mehraj, a journalist, was arrested in one of the two NIA cases along with Khurram Parvez.
On 22 July Khurram Parvez (48, in custody from 22.11.2021) and Irfan Meharaj (34, in custody from 20.03.2023) were released from jail following the orders dated 18 July granting bail by the NIA Special Court at Patiala House, New Delhi. The 2020 case is referred to by the NIA as the “NGO terror funding case” (registered as RC 37/2020 by the NIA) and includes allegations against the work of the organization (reporting, campaigning, and advocacy) and claims that these activities were funded by terrorist groups for the purpose of terrorism
This order of bail is the second judicial finding in favor of Khurram Parvez and JKCCS, following a previous order of bail from the Delhi High Court on 10 June for Khurram Parvez in a separate UAPA case. This is a 2021 registered against him by the NIA, referred to as the “LeT conspiracy case” (registered as RC 30/2021), in which the NIA alleges recruitment of persons and collection of information regarding security forces for terror purposes. Both bail orders note Khuram Parvez’s “infirmity” as a special consideration for his bail – while monitoring elections in Kashmir in 2004, Parvez was injured by a landmine blast and had his leg amputated. In neither of the NIA cases before the trial courts have charges been framed for trials to begin.
The NIA immediately challenged the orders of the NIA Special Court of July 2026 before the Delhi High Court and sought a stay on the release of Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraj. This was turned down by the court but stricter bail conditions were imposed. The Delhi High Court while granting bail in June 2026 and the Trial Court in its recent July bail order both limit the access of the accused to any “prosecution witness, complainant or person acquainted with the facts of the case” and bar them from sharing any “anti-national material” and they are to report to the Investigating Officer every fortnight. In the NIA Court’s bail order, both accused have also been restricted from leaving NCT Delhi without leave of the court, despite being permanent residents of Srinagar, Kashmir where their families also reside. Lately, bail conditions in many cases appear arbitrary and violative of the fundamental rights to life and freedom of expression, movement, and association constitutionally guaranteed in Articles 21 and 19 respectively. It is this aspect which deserves attention precisely because these rights, central to the dignity of any person in society, get curtailed sans due process.
The Delhi High Court tightened restrictions on personal liberty by increasing the reporting requirement to twice a week AND further bars the accused from: indulging in activities similar to activities on the basis of which the present case was registered; associate with any group or organization linked to the subject matter of the present case; participate in any gathering pertaining to issues similar to the pending case; circulate any posts, literature, posters, etc; establish any communication with co-accused or “any other person named in the materials”; or call any person indulging in similar activities as those alleged against them. The High Court will now further hear the NIA appeals in August 2026 against the grant of bail. Thus far, the NIA has not challenged the earlier bail granted by the Delhi High Court in June 2026 to Khurram Parvez in the 2021 NIA case.
The conditions, increased as they are by the Delhi High Court, are oppressive on the accused. PUDR has already drawn attention to the stringent bail conditions imposed by the Supreme Court in the case of Gulfisha Fatima where the Supreme Court granted bail to multiple accused in the 2020 riots cases (while rejecting bail for Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam). Despite the grant of bail, the Supreme Court imposed conditions that severely affect the rights of speech, expression, association and profession. The conditions of bail in the present cases follow in the footsteps of the Supreme Court.
Take for instance the issues of who to meet. In the thousands of pages of the chargesheets filed by the NIA, many persons and organizations are named. These include those with decades of work in civil liberties and human rights activism, journalism, and politics. Such conditions – restrictive as they are for those on bail – also impact and send a message to all those associated with the accused without any material offered or tested against them in the court of law.
Take another example. The court prohibits the bailees from expressing anything “anti-national”. Astonishingly, the court does not provide any definition of what constitutes “anti-national” and it appears as the political jargon much in use by the members and supporters of the ruling party. That this finds reference in a bail order is alarming. It smacks of subjectivity.
The reporting condition – twice a week – is onerous and severely disadvantages the accused in finding work and re-entering society with a regular social and professional routine. Forcing a person to live in exile away from one’s home denies the bailee the liberty to be amongst their kith and kin. The economic burden of living in cities like Delhi or Mumbai is also a drain on resources, reinforced by the conditions that effectively preclude the possibility of gainful employment
If bails come attached with such oppressive conditions, they becomes yet another weapon for the authorities to employ against political opponents and dissidents. This is an inversion of what bail actually means, to ensure that the accused attends court and not prejudice or interfere with the trial. It is worth recalling that ‘grant’ of bail for undertrial prisoners is premised on the presumption of innocence until convicted through a fair and speedy trial. It means restoration of personal liberty and freedoms with reasonable conditions that serve to ensure that the accused in no way interfere or subvert the process of trial. Instead, bail conditions are now another part of the “process as punishment”. PUDR reiterates that the State should cease its repressive uses of the legal apparatus.
Deepika Tandon, Shahana Bhattacharya
(Secretaries, PUDR)
