SRINAGAR: The Supreme Court on Monday raised serious concerns over the extremely low conviction rates in cases registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), observing that conviction rates in Jammu and Kashmir remain below one per cent, while granting bail to a Kashmir resident accused in a narco-terror case.
A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while allowing bail to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, who has remained incarcerated for more than five years in a case investigated by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).
Referring to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) statistics placed before Parliament by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, the Supreme Court said conviction rates under UAPA across India ranged between two and six per cent during the period from 2019 to 2023.
“In other words, there is a 94 per cent to 98 per cent possibility of acquittal in such cases in the country,” the bench observed.
The Court noted that the situation in Jammu and Kashmir was even more striking.
“In so far as the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the annual rate of conviction is always less than one per cent. It means that at the end of the trial, there is a 99 per cent possibility of acquittal in such cases,” the Court said.
Questioning prolonged incarceration in anti-terror cases where trials move slowly, the bench asked, “With such statistics staring at our face, the question is, should we continue the detention of the appellant or defer the consideration to a later stage, simply because the charges are serious?”
The Court reiterated the principle laid down in Union of India versus KA Najeeb, observing that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even in UAPA matters and that Section 43D(5) of the Act cannot be used mechanically to justify indefinite pre-trial detention.
While granting bail, the Court noted that no cash or contraband had been recovered either from Andrabi personally or from his residence or workplace.
The bench further observed that statements implicating the accused had been made before police authorities, including alleged confessional statements, which prima facie attracted the bar under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act relating to admissibility of police confessions.
“The appellant has no prior antecedents of being connected with narcotic trade or terrorist activities,” the Court noted.
The bench also recorded that Andrabi was stated to be “an ardent advocate of the constitutional, federal and democratic set-up of India” and a supporter of the Jammu and Kashmir People’s Conference, a registered mainstream political party.
The Court directed Andrabi’s release on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the Special NIA Court, including surrender of his passport and mandatory appearance at Handwara police station once every fortnight.
The case dates back to June 11, 2020, when police intercepted a vehicle at Kairo Bridge in Handwara and allegedly recovered Rs 20.01 lakh in cash along with two kilograms of heroin from accused Abdul Momin Peer.
According to the NIA chargesheet, subsequent investigation led to the arrest of Andrabi and another accused, Islam-ul-Haq Peer. The agency alleged that the accused were involved in cross-border smuggling of heroin sourced through contacts in Pakistan and that proceeds from narcotics trafficking were used to fund activities of banned militant organisations including Lashkar-e-Taiba and Hizbul Mujahideen.
The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh had earlier rejected Andrabi’s bail plea in August 2025, observing that material on record prima facie indicated his involvement in narco-terror activities and citing alleged communication links with operatives across the border.
The Supreme Court, however, took note of the slow pace of trial, pointing out that more than 320 witnesses had been cited in the case while only a small number had been examined so far.
In a significant observation, the apex court also expressed “serious reservations” over aspects of the Delhi High Court judgment in Gulfisha Fatima versus State, which had denied bail to accused persons including Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam in the Delhi riots conspiracy case.
