The Crossbill Team
The Delhi high court on Tuesday (July 21) allowed human rights activist Khurram Parvez and Kashmiri journalist Irfan Mehraj to remain out on bail in a 2020 UAPA case, declining to suspend the trial court's July 18 order that granted them relief.
The high court, however, tightened the conditions attached to their release, citing the seriousness of the allegations in the case.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan observed that the trial court had, prima facie, not recorded a finding as required under the proviso to Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Live Law reported.
“The trial court is a not constitutional court and ought to prima facie strictly go by the statute. Absence of any findings, the matter would require consideration of this court.
However since this is an order where bail was granted by trial court under various condition, without opinion on the merits and bearing in mind serious nature of allegations, following further conditions are imposed,” said the high court.
Under the additional conditions, Parvez and Mehraj have been directed to appear before the investigating officer (IO) twice every week.
The court has also restrained them from engaging in similar activities or associating with groups or organisations such as the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and its allied organisations.
The two can continue to meet and communicate with their close friends, relatives and family members, but have been prohibited from communicating or meeting with individuals named in the chargesheet.
During the hearing, senior advocate Madhav Khurana, appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), argued that the trial court had failed to make the necessary findings under the relevant provision of the UAPA. He submitted that allowing Parvez and Mehraj to remain free would be against national interest and could pose a serious threat to national security.
Parvez was represented by senior advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, assisted by advocates Swati and Kartik Venu, while advocate Jawahar Raja appeared for Mehraj. Their counsel argued that a bail order could be interfered with only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the order was alleged to be mechanical.
The trial court had granted bail on July 18 to the two accused in a case registered as RC-37/2020 at the Patiala House Courts. The NIA has referred to the matter as the “NGO terror funding case”. The latest development comes just over a month after the Delhi high court granted Parvez bail in a separate case registered by the NIA.
In the present case, the NIA has listed Parvez as the first accused and Mehraj as the second, while Ghulam Hassan Bana, whom the agency describes as absconding in Pakistan, has been named as the third accused.
The agency has alleged that the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), where Parvez worked as programme coordinator and Mehraj as a researcher, “received foreign funding that was channelled to the banned militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen under the guise of human rights work”. Both Parvez and Mehraj have denied the allegations through their lawyers.
With the high court refusing to stay their bail, Parvez and Mehraj will remain out of custody subject to the enhanced restrictions imposed by the court, while the legal challenge to the trial court's bail order continues.
The high court, however, tightened the conditions attached to their release, citing the seriousness of the allegations in the case.
A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Vikas Mahajan observed that the trial court had, prima facie, not recorded a finding as required under the proviso to Section 43D (5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Live Law reported.
“The trial court is a not constitutional court and ought to prima facie strictly go by the statute. Absence of any findings, the matter would require consideration of this court.
However since this is an order where bail was granted by trial court under various condition, without opinion on the merits and bearing in mind serious nature of allegations, following further conditions are imposed,” said the high court.
Under the additional conditions, Parvez and Mehraj have been directed to appear before the investigating officer (IO) twice every week.
The court has also restrained them from engaging in similar activities or associating with groups or organisations such as the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS) and its allied organisations.
The two can continue to meet and communicate with their close friends, relatives and family members, but have been prohibited from communicating or meeting with individuals named in the chargesheet.
During the hearing, senior advocate Madhav Khurana, appearing for the National Investigation Agency (NIA), argued that the trial court had failed to make the necessary findings under the relevant provision of the UAPA. He submitted that allowing Parvez and Mehraj to remain free would be against national interest and could pose a serious threat to national security.
Parvez was represented by senior advocate Tanvir Ahmed Mir, assisted by advocates Swati and Kartik Venu, while advocate Jawahar Raja appeared for Mehraj. Their counsel argued that a bail order could be interfered with only in exceptional circumstances, particularly when the order was alleged to be mechanical.
The trial court had granted bail on July 18 to the two accused in a case registered as RC-37/2020 at the Patiala House Courts. The NIA has referred to the matter as the “NGO terror funding case”. The latest development comes just over a month after the Delhi high court granted Parvez bail in a separate case registered by the NIA.
In the present case, the NIA has listed Parvez as the first accused and Mehraj as the second, while Ghulam Hassan Bana, whom the agency describes as absconding in Pakistan, has been named as the third accused.
The agency has alleged that the Jammu and Kashmir Coalition of Civil Society (JKCCS), where Parvez worked as programme coordinator and Mehraj as a researcher, “received foreign funding that was channelled to the banned militant outfit Hizbul Mujahideen under the guise of human rights work”. Both Parvez and Mehraj have denied the allegations through their lawyers.
With the high court refusing to stay their bail, Parvez and Mehraj will remain out of custody subject to the enhanced restrictions imposed by the court, while the legal challenge to the trial court's bail order continues.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment