Supreme Court Grants Bail In J&K Narco-Terror Case, Cites 1–4% UAPA Conviction Rate Data

The Bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, while ordering his release, took note of NCRB data placed before Parliament by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs showing extremely low conviction rates in UAPA cases across the country.

The Court observed that between 2019 and 2023, conviction rates under UAPA ranged from 1.5% to 4% nationally, while in Jammu and Kashmir the rate remained below 1%, touching 0.89% at its highest in 2022 and zero in 2019.

Referring to these figures, the Bench noted that such statistics indicate a high likelihood of acquittal at the end of trial, stating that in practical terms, this translates into a 94% to 98% probability of acquittal nationally and nearly 99% in Jammu and Kashmir.

The Court held that prolonged incarceration cannot be justified solely on the basis of allegations under stringent statutes and reiterated that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception”, even in cases involving national security laws.

It further reaffirmed the judgment in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, holding that Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be treated as the sole ground to deny bail where trial delays lead to extended pre-trial detention. The Bench emphasised that constitutional guarantees under Articles 21 and 22 must prevail over statutory restrictions.

The Court also underlined that smaller benches are bound by larger bench decisions and cannot dilute or disregard settled precedent, reiterating that judicial discipline requires consistency in bail jurisprudence under special laws.

The Bench expressed reservations over divergent approaches in earlier rulings and reiterated that the presumption of innocence remains a foundational principle of criminal law.

Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court directed the release of the accused on bail, subject to conditions imposed by the Special NIA Court. These include depositing his passport and appearing before Handwara police station every fortnight, along with compliance with all trial court directions.

The appeal had arisen from a Jammu and Kashmir High Court order that had earlier refused bail, citing prima facie material of alleged narco-terror involvement, including claims of drug recovery, cash seizures, and cross-border linkages, with over 320 witnesses cited in the case.