SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to an accused in a narcotics-terror funding case investigated by the National Investigation Agency, holding that the material on record does not disclose a prima facie case under the stringent provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
A division bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar pronounced the judgment on April 2, 2026, setting aside an order dated April 19, 2025, of the Special Judge, NIA, Jammu, which had declined bail to Amin Allaie (46), a resident of Sangam in Anantnag district, who has remained in custody since March 1, 2021. The case had been reserved for judgment on March 24, 2026.
Appearing for the appellant, Advocate I.H. Bhat contended that the prosecution case rested largely on disclosure and confessional statements of co-accused and alleged telephonic contacts, without any independent corroboration, and that no recovery had been effected from his client. On behalf of the NIA, Deputy Solicitor General of India Vishal Sharma, assisted by CGSC Eeshaan Dadhichi and Public Prosecutor Chandan Kumar Singh, opposed the plea, submitting that the accused was part of a larger conspiracy involving narcotics trafficking and that proceeds were utilised for militant activities, relying on documentary material including voice clips and chats.
The High Court, after examining the trial court record, observed that the case against the appellant stemmed from FIR RC-03/2020/NIA/Jammu dated June 23, 2020, in which allegations were made of an organised network engaged in smuggling narcotic substances and channelling proceeds towards terror funding in Jammu and Kashmir. The prosecution alleged that Allaie, arraigned as accused No. 13, had been involved in the transportation and supply of charas over several years and had maintained contact with other accused persons, including an approver, Showkat Ahmad Parray, who was described as one of the key conspirators. It was further alleged that he facilitated the procurement of a vehicle later used in narcotics transportation.
The bench, however, noted that no contraband or incriminating material had been recovered from the appellant and that his implication was primarily based on the statement of the approver and confessional statements of co-accused, along with alleged telephonic contacts. Referring to settled legal principles governing evidentiary value, the court observed that such material constitutes weak evidence unless corroborated by independent proof.
Quoting from the judgment, the court said, “No recovery has been effected from the appellant, nor is there any material to demonstrate his conscious possession, direct participation, or involvement in any transaction leading to the recovery of narcotic substances from other co-accused. The entire case against him rests upon the statement of an approver and alleged telephonic contacts, without any corroborative evidence.”
The court further held that even if the prosecution material was accepted at face value, it did not meet the statutory threshold under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA. “Even if the prosecution material is taken at its face value, the same does not satisfy the threshold… as there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations against the appellant are prima facie true,” the bench observed.
The judges also took note of the appellant’s continued incarceration for over five years and underscored the constitutional dimension of personal liberty. “The continued incarceration of the appellant, particularly in the backdrop of prolonged custody, would be inconsistent with the mandate of Article 21 of the Constitution,” the court said.
The High Court found that the role attributed to the appellant was, at best, peripheral and inferential, with no material to establish his direct involvement in the recoveries made in June 2020 or any demonstrable link with militant organisations. It also noted that an earlier NDPS case registered against him in 2012, in which he had already been granted bail, could not by itself justify continued detention in the present case.
Allowing the appeal, the court directed that the appellant be released on bail subject to furnishing a personal bond of Rs 1 lakh with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court, appearing on each date of hearing, not leaving the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir without prior permission, and refraining from engaging in similar offences. The appeal, Crl A(D) No. 26/2025, was accordingly disposed of, with directions issued to the trial court for compliance.
