NEW DELHI, May 18, 2026: The Supreme Court, while granting bail to a Jammu and Kashmir man accused in a narco-terror case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) after more than five years of incarceration, observed that conviction rates in UAPA cases across India remain extremely low, with Jammu and Kashmir recording a conviction rate of less than one per cent.
Referring to National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data placed before Parliament by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, a bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said the figures reflected a very high probability of acquittal in such cases at the conclusion of trial.
“Therefore, for all India figures, we have 2% to 6% conviction, meaning thereby that there is 94% to 98% possibility of acquittal in such cases in the country. In so far as the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir is concerned, the annual rate of conviction is always less than 1%. It means that at the end of the trial there is 99% possibility of acquittal in such cases,” the Court observed.
The apex court made the observations while emphasising that prolonged incarceration could not be justified merely on the basis of allegations under anti-terror laws. Reiterating the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception,” the Court said Section 43D(5) of the UAPA could not be used mechanically to deny bail and prolong pre-trial detention indefinitely.
The bench also referred to its earlier judgment in Union of India v. KA Najeeb, observing that constitutional courts must intervene where undertrial incarceration becomes excessive and the trial shows little possibility of concluding within a reasonable time.
“There is one more good reason why we should follow KA Najeeb. And for this we have referred to a few statistics of the last 5 years placed before the Parliament by the Minister of State for Home Affairs based on the statistics of the National Crime Records Bureau. For the 5 years 2019 to 2023, all India figures, the rate of conviction minimum is 1.5% and a maximum is 4%. Whereas in the case of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, the rate of conviction in 2019 was zero and the maximum was in 2022 – 0.89%,” the Court observed.
The Supreme Court subsequently directed the release of the appellant, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, on bail subject to conditions imposed by the Special NIA Court. The Court ordered him to deposit his passport and appear before the Handwara police station once every fortnight.
In a significant observation, the Court also expressed “serious reservations” regarding the Delhi High Court judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State, which had denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The bench questioned several aspects of that ruling, particularly the direction that effectively restrained the accused from seeking bail for one year.
Background Of The Case
The appeal arose from an August 19, 2025 judgment of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, which had refused bail to Andrabi in an NIA case alleging involvement in narco-terror activities.
The High Court had held that the prosecution’s material prima facie indicated the appellant’s complicity in narco-terror operations. It had also taken note of allegations regarding the recovery of heroin and cash, along with alleged links to persons operating from across the border.
The High Court further observed that more than 320 witnesses had been cited in the case, while only a small number had been examined during the course of the trial, indicating that the proceedings were likely to take considerable time to conclude.
