National Investigation Agency Alleged Civil-Society Group Funded Terror Networks and Separatist Activities; Delhi High Court Allows Accused to Remain on Bail Under Stricter Curbs
Facts
The National Investigation Agency filed two criminal appeals challenging separate orders dated 18 July 2026 by which the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi, granted regular bail to:
- Khurram Parvez, Accused Number 1; and
- Irfan Mehraz, Accused Number 2.
The prosecution arose from First Information Report Number RC-37/2020/NIA/DLI dated 8 October 2020, registered at Police Station National Investigation Agency, New Delhi.
The case involved allegations under:
- Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, concerning criminal conspiracy;
- Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code, concerning sedition; and
- Sections 17, 18, 22A, 22C, 38, 39 and 40 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.
The National Investigation Agency filed its chargesheet on 15 September 2023. Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraz were named as the first and second accused. Ghulam Hassan Bana, Accused Number 3, was stated to be absconding.
National Investigation Agency’s Allegations
According to the chargesheet, Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraz were connected with the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society, which described itself as a civil-society organisation or non-governmental organisation.
The National Investigation Agency alleged that the organisation was neither registered as a non-governmental organisation nor under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010.
The chargesheet alleged that Khurram Parvez:
- Worked as the Programme Coordinator of the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society;
- Used human-rights reporting as a cover for organising separatist programmes;
- Published fabricated narratives intended to spread disaffection against the Indian State;
- Conspired with commanders of the proscribed organisation Hizbul Mujahideen;
- Had links with the Jammu and Kashmir Affectees Relief Trust and Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence;
- Raised and received illegal foreign funding;
- Routed funds through a complex financial network;
- Distributed money to the families of active or deceased Hizbul Mujahideen cadres;
- Used code names in records concerning alleged payments;
- Facilitated the recruitment and travel of local youth to Pakistan;
- Organised or participated in programmes attended by members of banned organisations; and
- Met persons associated with Hizbul Mujahideen and other separatist or terrorist organisations.
The National Investigation Agency alleged that Irfan Mehraz:
- Worked as a researcher and volunteer with the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society from 2016;
- Was a close associate of Khurram Parvez;
- Participated in a larger conspiracy promoting the secession of Kashmir;
- Maintained contact with Hizbul Mujahideen commanders and persons allegedly affiliated with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence;
- Was associated with international non-governmental organisations allegedly supporting Kashmir’s secession;
- Instigated youth to engage in stone-pelting;
- Assisted in receiving funds from the Kashmiri diaspora and the absconding accused; and
- Participated in distributing funds to stone-pelters, alleged over-ground workers and families of deceased terrorists.
These were prosecution allegations and had not been finally proved at trial.
Trial Court’s Bail Orders
Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraz sought regular bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, read with Section 43D of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Trial Court granted bail on 18 July 2026.
It principally relied upon:
- The length of their custody;
- The fact that charges had not yet been framed;
- The likelihood that the trial would take considerable time;
- Its view that the allegations were mainly based on oral testimony; and
- The fact that the truthfulness of the witnesses would be tested during trial.
The Trial Court imposed several conditions, including:
- A personal bond of ₹2 lakh with two sureties of the same amount;
- Surrender of passports;
- A prohibition on leaving the National Capital Territory of Delhi without permission;
- Use of only one disclosed mobile or landline number;
- Regular appearance before the Trial Court;
- No delay of the proceedings;
- No contact with witnesses or persons connected with the case;
- No tampering with evidence or electronic material;
- No public statement regarding the merits, witnesses or evidence;
- No activity prejudicial to public order or the integrity of the trial;
- No circulation of anti-national material;
- Fortnightly reporting to the Investigating Officer; and
- Liberty to the prosecution to seek cancellation if any condition was breached.
The National Investigation Agency urgently challenged the bail orders before the Delhi High Court and sought an interim stay on their operation.
Issues
- Whether the Trial Court applied the mandatory restriction contained in Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act before granting bail.
- Whether the Trial Court was required to determine if there were reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations were prima facie true.
- Whether the Trial Court had incorrectly treated the prosecution case as being based only on oral testimony.
- Whether documentary evidence relied upon in the chargesheet required specific examination before bail could be granted.
- Whether prolonged custody and likely delay in trial were sufficient by themselves to grant bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
- Whether the High Court should suspend the bail orders pending final disposal of the National Investigation Agency’s appeals.
- Whether the respondents’ release would create risks concerning national security, witnesses, evidence or continued association with the organisations named in the chargesheet.
- Whether additional bail conditions could adequately protect the investigation and trial while the appeals remained pending.
Appellant’s Arguments
National Investigation Agency
The National Investigation Agency argued that the Trial Court had failed to apply the statutory test under the proviso to Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
It submitted that:
- The Trial Court was required to examine the chargesheet and supporting material.
- It had to determine whether reasonable grounds existed for believing that the accusations were prima facie true.
- No such finding was recorded.
- The bail orders proceeded mainly on the duration of custody and likely delay in trial.
- The Trial Court incorrectly stated that the case rested mainly on oral testimony.
- The chargesheet also relied upon documentary material that was not discussed.
- The statutory restriction could not be bypassed merely because charges had not yet been framed.
- The allegations involved terror funding, separatist activities and links with banned organisations.
- The accused allegedly maintained international and organisational connections relevant to national security.
- Their release could jeopardise national security and the integrity of the trial.
The National Investigation Agency therefore sought an immediate stay on the operation of both bail orders.
Respondents’ Arguments
Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraz
The respondents argued that the High Court should not interfere with an order granting bail unless it was manifestly perverse, mechanical or legally unsustainable.
They submitted that:
- The Trial Court had considered the allegations before granting bail.
- Bail was granted only after imposing extensive safeguards.
- They had already submitted their bail bonds and sureties.
- Their release should not be delayed merely because verification of bail bonds had been adjourned.
- Once a valid bail order was passed and bonds were furnished, continued detention would be contrary to law.
- The National Investigation Agency had not established exceptional circumstances warranting suspension of bail.
Khurram Parvez also relied upon an order dated 10 June 2026 in another criminal appeal arising from First Information Report Number RC-30/2021/NIA/DLI.
He submitted that:
- He had already been granted bail in that case;
- The allegations in the other case overlapped with the present prosecution; and
- The National Investigation Agency had not challenged that earlier order.
The respondents therefore requested the High Court to reject the interim stay application and permit their release.
Analysis of the Law
Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act
Section 43D(5) imposes a special restriction on the grant of bail for specified offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
Before granting bail, the Court must:
- Examine the case diary, chargesheet and report filed by the investigating agency;
- Give the Public Prosecutor an opportunity to oppose bail; and
- Determine whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the accused are prima facie true.
If such reasonable grounds exist, the statutory restriction ordinarily prevents the grant of bail.
This examination does not require the Court to conduct a full trial or conclusively determine guilt. It nevertheless requires an assessment of whether the prosecution material, taken at its face value, supports the accusations.
Trial Court’s Failure to Apply the Statutory Test
The High Court found that the Trial Court’s reasoning was principally based on:
- The prosecution evidence supposedly being oral;
- The need to test witness credibility at trial;
- Prolonged custody;
- Charges not having been framed; and
- The trial being unlikely to conclude soon.
The Trial Court did not record a clear finding under Section 43D(5) regarding whether the accusations were prima facie true.
The High Court also found that the chargesheet contained documentary evidence. The Trial Court’s description of the case as mainly dependent upon oral testimony was therefore incomplete.
The documentary material should have been examined and discussed while applying the statutory test.
Delay in Trial and Statutory Restriction
The possibility of prolonged detention is an important consideration in bail matters. However, the High Court held that the Trial Court could not ignore the special statutory mandate under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Special Court was required to apply Section 43D(5) directly rather than grant bail solely because:
- The accused had remained in custody;
- Charges were yet to be framed; and
- The trial might take a long time.
High Court’s Refusal to Stay Bail
Despite identifying a significant deficiency in the Trial Court’s orders, the High Court declined to stay their operation at the interim stage.
The Court considered that:
- Bail had already been granted;
- The Trial Court had imposed numerous conditions;
- Bail bonds and sureties had been furnished;
- The appeals required fuller consideration; and
- Additional conditions could protect the proceedings pending final adjudication.
Accordingly, the Court did not cancel bail or prevent release.
Additional Bail Restrictions
Because of the seriousness of the allegations, the High Court imposed further safeguards.
Both accused were directed to:
- Report to the Chief Investigating Officer at the National Investigation Agency Headquarters, Lodhi Road, Delhi, twice every week—on Tuesdays and Fridays at 11:00 a.m.
- Refrain from any activity similar to the conduct alleged in the First Information Report.
- Not associate with any group or organisation linked with the subject matter of the prosecution, including the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society.
- Not participate in or address any programme, gathering, rally or meeting relating to issues similar to the pending case, whether physically or virtually.
- Not circulate posts, literature, handbills, posters, banners or similar material in physical or electronic form.
- Not communicate with any co-accused or person named in the prosecution material.
- Not make international calls to persons allegedly involved in similar activities.
- Limit their interactions to close relatives and family members while avoiding communication or meetings with persons or organisations named in the chargesheet.
These conditions were imposed in addition to, and not as substitutes for, the Trial Court’s conditions.
Nature of the High Court’s Order
The High Court did not finally decide:
- Whether the accusations were prima facie true;
- Whether bail had ultimately been granted correctly;
- Whether the respondents were guilty;
- Whether the National Investigation Agency’s appeals should be allowed; or
- Whether the bail orders should ultimately be set aside.
The order was confined to the National Investigation Agency’s request for interim suspension of bail.
Precedent Analysis
Khurram Parvez v. National Investigation Agency
Khurram Parvez relied upon a Coordinate Bench order dated 10 June 2026 in Criminal Appeal Number 1234 of 2024 arising from a separate First Information Report.
He argued that:
- He had been granted bail in that matter;
- Some allegations overlapped with the present case; and
- The National Investigation Agency had not challenged the earlier bail order.
The High Court noted the submission but did not treat the earlier order as conclusively deciding the present appeals because the present prosecution arose from a separate First Information Report and chargesheet.
Mandatory Statutory Framework Under Section 43D(5)
The High Court’s interim decision principally rested on the text and mandatory effect of Section 43D(5), rather than on an extended discussion of multiple precedents.
The Court emphasised that a Trial Court dealing with offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act must strictly follow the statutory test and cannot replace it with general bail considerations alone.
Status of the Trial Court’s Bail Orders
The High Court expressly directed that the Trial Court’s orders dated 18 July 2026 should not be cited as precedents in other cases because their legality remained under examination in the pending appeals.
Court’s Reasoning
The Delhi High Court reached the following interim conclusions:
- Section 43D(5) required the Trial Court to assess whether the accusations were prima facie true.
- The Trial Court did not record the required statutory conclusion.
- Its reasoning concentrated on oral testimony, custody and likely delay.
- The chargesheet also contained documentary evidence.
- That documentary evidence should have been considered and discussed.
- The Trial Court, being bound by the statute, could not ignore the special bail restriction.
- The allegations concerned alleged terrorist funding, separatist activity and links with banned organisations.
- The accusations were sufficiently serious to justify stronger safeguards.
- Nevertheless, the Trial Court had already granted bail and imposed several conditions.
- At the interim stage, the High Court was not inclined to suspend the operation of the bail orders.
- The risks identified by the National Investigation Agency could temporarily be addressed through additional reporting, association and communication restrictions.
- The High Court did not express any view on the truth of the allegations.
- The National Investigation Agency’s appeals remained pending for final consideration.
- Proceedings before the Trial Court were permitted to continue.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court found that the Trial Court had failed to properly apply Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and had not examined the documentary evidence relied upon by the National Investigation Agency.
However, the High Court refused to stay the bail orders granted to Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraz.
Instead, it:
- Continued all conditions imposed by the Trial Court;
- Added twice-weekly reporting at the National Investigation Agency Headquarters;
- Prohibited association with the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society and other organisations connected with the case;
- Restrained participation in case-related meetings, programmes and gatherings;
- Prohibited circulation of posts, literature, posters, banners and similar material;
- Restricted communication with co-accused and persons named in the chargesheet;
- Restricted international calls to persons allegedly involved in similar activities;
- Directed that the Trial Court proceedings should continue;
- Directed the respondents to file replies within two weeks;
- Requisitioned the electronic Trial Court record; and
- Listed the appeals for further hearing on 24 August 2026.
The order was interim. The legality of the bail orders and the National Investigation Agency’s appeals remained undecided.
Case Details
Cases: National Investigation Agency v. Khurram Parvez and National Investigation Agency v. Irfan Mehraz, 2026:DHC:5799-DB
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, Division Bench
Case Numbers: Criminal Appeal Numbers 663 and 664 of 2026
Interim Applications: Criminal Miscellaneous Application Numbers 21128 and 21134 of 2026
Judges: Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Vikas Mahajan
Date: 21 July 2026
Result: Interim stay of the bail orders refused; additional stringent bail conditions imposed. National Investigation Agency’s appeals remained pending, Trial Court proceedings were directed to continue, and the matters were listed for 24 August 2026.
