Trial Not Completed 5 Years, SC's Ratio In KA Najeeb Case Won't Apply: J&K High Court Denies Bail To UAPA Accused

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed bail applications filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, ruling that the allegations involving recovery of explosive substances and links with a militant module are too grave to warrant release at this stage of the trial.A bench of Justices Rajnesh Oswal, Sanjay Parihar observed that the trial is underway with material evidence already recorded and the delay, if any, is not inordinate enough to invoke the principle laid down in K.A. Najeeb.The court said that the appellants have undergone more than four years in custody and eleven witnesses have already been examined, so by applying K.A. Najeeb's case, still the appellants are short of having completed five years of trial, so the bail on such ground cannot be asked for as a matter of right. The court added that the stringent bar under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA coupled with the serious nature of the allegations, rules out the grant of bail.The Court reiterated that “bail not jail” does not apply to UAPA offences in the usual way. The court said “conventional bail jurisprudence stands severely restricted,” relying on Gurinder Singh and Peerzada Shah Fahad, distinguishing the latter on facts. The Court emphasized that personal liberty cannot trump national security, holding that such acts are not ordinary offences but aimed at spreading terror and fear to undermine India's sovereignty and public order. The court said that the petitioners failed to demonstrate that the case against them is weak or that the allegations are hearsay. The framing of charges and the ongoing trial provide a sufficient basis to continue their custody.The charges framed include Section 18 (conspiracy to commit a terrorist act), Section 23 (enhanced penalties for possession of explosives), and Section 39 (support to a terrorist organisation), based on the recovery of hand grenades and association with known militants who were later killed in an encounter.BACKGROUND: In this case two individuals were apprehended at a police checkpoint near Sangam, Anantnag. During the search of their vehicle, arms and ammunition (including 2 pistols, 13 magazines, and 116 live rounds) were recovered, leading to FIR under Arms Act and UAPA provisions.Investigations revealed their links with the banned terrorist outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). Based on their disclosures, appellants were arrested, one found in possession of a hand grenade, the other with 1 kg of explosive material. All were charged with conspiracy and militant activity, invoking Sections 18, 23, 39 of the UAPA and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act.The appellants sought bail, arguing that they have been in custody since January 2021, the trial is delayed, and only 11 witnesses have been examined so far. They also claimed there is no direct evidence against them apart from disclosure statements by co-accused.However, the prosecution opposed bail, highlighting that the appellants were found in direct possession of explosives, associated with known terrorists who were later killed in encounters, and their release could threaten public safety and hinder the trial.APPEARANCEWajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocate for Petitioner Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG For Respondent Case-Title: BILAL AHMAD KUMAR VS UT Of J&KCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 235Click Here To Read/Download Order

Trial Not Completed 5 Years, SC's Ratio In KA Najeeb Case Won't Apply: J&K High Court Denies Bail To UAPA Accused

Aleem Syeed

Tags