Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Due To Delay In Trial In Cases Involving Alleged Narco-Terror Links: J&K High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reaffirmed that bail in cases under the UA(P) Act and NDPS Act is subject to strict legal conditions as these laws apply especially when the offence involves terrorism or narco-terrorism.The Court made it clear that delay in trial or long incarceration alone is not enough to relax these restrictions. If there is prima facie evidence of the accused's involvement, the stringent bail provisions must be followed, it emphasised. Dismissing the bail appeal filed by one Arshad Ahmed Allaie, a Shopian resident facing serious charges under both statutes, a Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem underscored the limited judicial discretion under these special laws and the paramount interest of national security.The appeal arose from the order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Designated TADA Court), which had rejected Allaie's bail plea in an FIR. The case dates back to 2019, when a police intercepted a vehicle and recovered 260 grams of heroin and cash from the possession of Arshad Ahmed Allaie and co-accused Fayaz Ahmed Dar. The investigation had revealed startling links between the accused and cross-border drug syndicates operating from Pakistan.Appearing for the appellant, Advocate I.H. Bhat contended that the charges were false and politically motivated, and that key prosecution witnesses had already been examined without implicating Allaie in the alleged crimes. He further submitted that prolonged incarceration of the appellant strengthened his plea for bail. Opposing the plea, Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli submitted that the investigation had unearthed a well-oiled syndicate involving narco-financing of terrorism. She argued that the evidence collected prima facie demonstrated Allaie's integral role in a cross-border criminal conspiracy.Court's Observations:Refusing to grant bail, Justice Shahzad Azeem writing the judgment for the bench observed that both the NDPS Act and the UA(P) Act lay down strict conditions for bail, which cannot be diluted merely on account of delayed trial. It held, “The stringent bail provisions under both Acts make it highly challenging to secure bail unless the accused can demonstrate a strong case of innocence or procedural lapses by the prosecution.”The Court emphasized that once charges have been framed, as they had been in the instant case, under Sections 8, 21, 22, 29 of the NDPS Act and Sections 13, 17, 21, 39, and 40 of the UA(P) Act there is a presumption of prima facie satisfaction regarding the accused's involvement, shifting the burden heavily upon the appellant to rebut the accusations.Justice Azeem added, “At the stage of consideration of bail, giving of reasons for grant or non-grant of bail are markedly different from discussing merits or demerits of the evidence... The Court is merely expected to record a finding on the basis of broad probabilities regarding the involvement of the accused.”The Court reviewed the testimonies of several prosecution witnesses and found that even on a cursory reading, these accounts supported the prosecution's version and disclosed the appellant's active complicity.Regarding the plea based on delay, the Court categorically rejected the argument, relying on recent Supreme Court jurisprudence including Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, observing, “Once the appellant is prima facie shown to have been involved in such heinous crime, the law regarding delayed trial or violation of constitutional right of having speedy trial would not come to his rescue… particularly when non-state actors in control of all such alleged terrorist-related activities are operating from across the Border.”The Court further remarked, “Mere delay in trial pertaining to grave offences as one involved in the instant case cannot be used as a ground to grant bail.”Criticism of Co-Accused's Bail Order:The Court also criticized the trial court's earlier decision granting bail to co-accused Fayaz Ahmed, noting that the consignment recovered was of a commercial quantity (260 grams of heroin), which squarely attracted Section 37 NDPS Act, yet the trial court had failed to consider or even refer to the statutory restrictions. The High Court directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice for remedial action and also recommended action by the Director General of Police for prosecutorial lapses in not appealing that order.Finding no merit in the appeal the same was accordingly dismissed, and the bail plea rejected.Case Title: Arshad Ahmed Allaie Vs UT Of J&K Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (JKL) 274Click Here To Read/Download Judgment

Bail Cannot Be Granted Merely Due To Delay In Trial In Cases Involving Alleged Narco-Terror Links: J&K High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags