The Jammu & Kashmir High Court has rejected the bail plea of an accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), citing serious charges involving explosive recovery and links to a terror outfit. The Court firmly stated that the Supreme Court’s ruling in K.A. Najeeb's case does not apply since the five-year trial period is yet to be completed.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar heard the matter and noted that although the accused have spent over four years in custody, the ongoing trial has already seen eleven witnesses examined, showing progress. The bench clarified that a delay alone doesn’t qualify the accused for bail.
“The appellants have not completed five years in custody; hence, K.A. Najeeb cannot be invoked as a matter of right,” the Court said.
The Court further highlighted that the nature of allegations was grave, and Section 43D(5) of the UAPA, which imposes a stringent bar on granting bail in such cases, remains applicable. It ruled that conventional bail principles don’t operate the same way in UAPA cases.
“The rule of ‘bail, not jail’ doesn’t apply ordinarily to UAPA offences,” the Court emphasized, citing precedents including Gurinder Singh and Peerzada Shah Fahad, while distinguishing the latter based on facts.
The High Court noted that the accused could not prove that the case was weak or based on hearsay. The framing of charges under UAPA Sections 18 (conspiracy), 23 (explosives possession), 39 (support to terror outfit) and Arms Act provisions justified their continued detention.
“Liberty of an individual cannot override the interest of national security,” the Court said, asserting that these acts were not ordinary crimes but deliberate attempts to spread fear and disrupt public order.
Background
The case arose when two individuals were stopped at a checkpoint near Sangam, Anantnag, and a search led to the recovery of two pistols, 13 magazines, and 116 live rounds. This prompted the filing of an FIR under the Arms Act and UAPA.
Read Also:- Bombay High Court Refuses to Recognise TikTok as a Well-Known Trademark Due to Ongoing Ban in India
Investigations revealed their association with the banned outfit Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). Upon further inquiry, one of the accused was found with a hand grenade, and the other with 1 kg of explosive material. Their links to militants killed in an encounter were also established.
The defence argued that the trial has been delayed, the accused have been in custody since January 2021, and only a few witnesses had been examined. They also claimed there was no direct evidence apart from disclosure statements.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Res judicata applies to different stages of the same case, not just different proceedings
The prosecution strongly opposed the bail, stating that the accused were directly caught with arms and explosives, were linked to active terrorists, and that their release could threaten public safety and obstruct justice.
“The seriousness of allegations and evidence recovered bars any leniency,” the Court concluded.
Case Title: Bilal Ahmad Kumar vs UT of J&K, 2025
Appearance:
Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocate for Petitioner
Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG for Respondent
