Ethics · 23 Jul 2026

UAPA Section 43D(5) bail K.A. Najeeb

With reference to UAPA bail jurisprudence and the Khurram Parvez case, which one of the following statements is NOT correctly described?

ASection 43D(5) of the UAPA reverses the ordinary "bail is the rule" presumption, requiring courts to deny bail if the accusation appears prima facie true
BIn K.A. Najeeb (2021), the Supreme Court held that UAPA's strict bail bar cannot override the constitutional right to liberty when trials stall indefinitely
CThe Delhi High Court stayed the trial court's bail order for Khurram Parvez, keeping him in custody pending further hearing
DIn NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), the Supreme Court held that courts should not conduct a detailed mini-trial of evidence at the bail stage

Tests the ability to catch a reversed factual outcome (stay refused, not granted) among otherwise accurate case-law statements - a common UPSC technique for the "not correct" format.

Subscribe / Login in App →
About this question

Why in news

The Delhi High Court refused to stay a trial court's order granting bail to Khurram Parvez and Irfan Mehraj in a 2020 UAPA terror-funding case, despite NIA's national security objections, after Parvez spent four years and eight months in custody without a concluded trial.

Why for UPSC

This "NOT correct" format, used sparingly, tests whether aspirants catch a reversed outcome (stay refused vs stay granted) that is easy to misread quickly, alongside correct case-law recall for two landmark UAPA precedents.

Prelims summary

The Delhi High Court refused to stay bail for Khurram Parvez after nearly five years in custody; Section 43D(5) inverts the bail presumption, but K.A. Najeeb (2021) limits this when trials stall indefinitely, building on Watali (2019)'s restraint on evidence-testing at the bail stage.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.