The Supreme Court has raised sharp concerns over the extremely low conviction rates in cases filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, observing that the data reflects an overwhelming likelihood of acquittal after years of incarceration.
A Bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while granting bail to a Jammu and Kashmir resident accused in a narco-terror case investigated by the National Investigation Agency. The accused had remained behind bars for more than five years awaiting trial.
Drawing from NCRB figures presented before Parliament by the Union Home Ministry, the Court noted that UAPA conviction rates across the country between 2019 and 2023 fluctuated between roughly 1.5% and 4%. In Jammu and Kashmir, the figures were even lower, remaining below 1% throughout the period.
The Bench remarked that these numbers effectively indicate that acquittal remains the far more probable outcome in such prosecutions.
According to the Court, national conviction rates between 2% and 6% mean that acquittal is possible in nearly 94% to 98% of cases. For Jammu and Kashmir, where conviction rates stayed below 1%, the Court observed that the probability of acquittal rises to almost 99%.
The judges used the statistics to underline a broader constitutional concern: prolonged imprisonment before conviction cannot become routine merely because allegations are grave. Reaffirming the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the Bench said the restrictive bail provision under Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot be treated as an automatic barrier against release.
The Court relied upon the precedent in Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, reiterating that constitutional courts must intervene where trials move at a glacial pace and incarceration stretches indefinitely.
Bail was ultimately granted to the appellant, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, with conditions to be fixed by the Special NIA Court. The Supreme Court directed him to surrender his passport and report to the Handwara police station once every fortnight.
The Bench also expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of the Delhi High Court ruling in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, the case in which bail had been denied to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The Court said it had “serious reservations” about portions of that judgment, particularly the direction that effectively restrained the accused from moving fresh bail applications for a year.
The case before the Supreme Court arose from an August 19, 2025 decision of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court refusing bail to Andrabi in an NIA prosecution alleging narco-terror links.
The High Court had cited allegations involving recovery of heroin, cash seizures and purported cross-border connections. It had also taken note of the scale of the prosecution, which listed more than 320 witnesses, while only a handful had been examined so far.
