Upto 6% Conviction In UAPA Cases Nationally; In J&K, Conviction Rate Less Than 1% : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, while granting bail to a Jammu and Kashmir man accused in a narco-terror case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and incarcerated for over 5 years, noted that UAPA conviction rates across India ranged between 1.5% and 4% between 2019 and 2023, while conviction rates in Jammu and Kashmir remained below 1%.

Referring to NCRB data placed before Parliament by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that these statistics point to a high probability of acquittals in such cases at the end of trial.

“Therefore , for all India figures, we have 2% to 6% conviction, meaning thereby that there is 94% to 98% possibility of acquittal in such cases in the country. In so far as the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the annual rate of conviction is always less than 1%. It means that at the end of the trial there is 99% possibility of acquittal in such cases”, the Court observed.

The Court referred to the low conviction rates in UAPA cases while emphasising that courts could not allow prolonged incarceration solely on the basis of allegations and held that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even under the anti-terror law. The Court reiterated the observation in Union of India v. KA Najeeb that Section 43D(5) of UAPA could not be used as the sole basis for denying bail, resulting in prolonged pre-trial incarceration.

“There is one more good reason why we should follow KA Najeeb. And for this we have referred to a few statistics of the last 5 years placed before the Parliament by the Minister of State for Home Affairs based on the statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau. For the 5 years 2019 to 2023, all India figures, the rate of conviction minimum is 1.5% and a maximum is 4%. Whereas in the case of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the rate of conviction in 2019 was zero and the maximum was in 2022 – 0.89%”, the Court observed.

The Court directed release of the appellant on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the Special NIA Court. It directed him to deposit his passport and appear before Handwara police station once every fortnight.

The Court also disapproved of the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State which denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The Court expressed “serious reservations” regarding various aspects of the judgment, including the direction effectively preventing the accused from seeking bail for one year.

Background

The appeal arose from a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment dated August 19, 2025, which had refused bail to the appellant, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, in an NIA case alleging narco-terror activities.

The High Court had held that the prosecution material prima facie showed the appellant's complicity in narco-terror activities and noted allegations regarding recovery of heroin and cash as well as alleged links with persons operating from across the border.

The High Court had also noted that more than 320 witnesses had been cited in the case and only a small number had been examined during trial.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 1090/2026 

Case Title – Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu