Srinagar, May 18:Supreme Court of India on Monday said that the conviction rate in Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) cases in Jammu and Kashmir stands at less than one percent, far lower than the national conviction rate, which is below six percent, accordibng to a report in the Live Law.

The Court also noted that UAPA conviction rates across India ranged between 1.5% and 4% between 2019 and 2023, while conviction rates in Jammu and Kashmir remained below 1%.

Referring to NCRB data placed before Parliament by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan observed that these statistics point to a high probability of acquittals in such cases at the end 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 Court referred to the low conviction rates in UAPA cases while emphasising that courts could not allow prolonged incarceration solely on the basis of allegations and held that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” even under the anti-terror law. The Court reiterated the observation in Union of India v. KA Najeeb that Section 43D(5) of UAPA could not be used as the sole basis for denying bail, resulting in prolonged pre-trial incarceration.

“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 Court directed release of the appellant on bail subject to conditions to be imposed by the Special NIA Court. It directed him to deposit his passport and appear before Handwara police station once every fortnight.

The Court also disapproved of the judgment in Gulfisha Fatima v. State which denied bail to Umar Khalid and Sharjeel Imam. The Court expressed “serious reservations” regarding various aspects of the judgment, including the direction effectively preventing the accused from seeking bail for one year.

Background

The appeal arose from a Jammu and Kashmir High Court judgment dated August 19, 2025, which had refused bail to the appellant, Syed Iftikhar Andrabi, in an NIA case alleging narco-terror activities.

The High Court had held that the prosecution material prima facie showed the appellant’s complicity in narco-terror activities and noted allegations regarding recovery of heroin and cash as well as alleged links with persons operating from across the border.

The High Court had also noted that more than 320 witnesses had been cited in the case and only a small number had been examined during trial.

Case no. – SLP(Crl) No. 1090/2026

Case Title – Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, Jammu

upto-6-conviction-in-uapa-cases-nationally-in-jk-conviction-rate-less-than-1-supreme-court-534581

New Delhi, May 18: Observing that bail is the rule and jail is an exception even in UAPA cases, the Supreme Court on Monday granted bail to a man facing trial in a high-profile narco-terror case for his alleged involvement in a cross-border syndicate engaged in drug trafficking and financing terror in Jammu and Kashmir.

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan granted relief to Handwara resident Syed Iftikhar Andrabi and directed him to surrender his passport and report to the local police station once in 15 days.

The NIA is investigating the case filed in 2020 under relevant sections of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and the IPC.

The top court said Section 43D(5) of the UAPA cannot justify indefinite incarceration and must operate subject to Articles 21 and 22. The section outlines stringent bail restrictions.

“Bail the rule and jail the exception is a constitutional principle flowing from article 21 and 22 and the presumption of innocence is the cornerstone of any civilized society governed by rule of law,” the bench said.

The apex court made it clear that its judgement in the KA Najeeb case is a binding law and cannot be diluted, circumvented or disregarded by trial courts, high courts or even by benches of a lower strength of this court.

The KA Najeeb case is a landmark Supreme Court ruling delivered in 2021 regarding bail under the UAPA.

Andrabi had challenged an order passed by the High Court of J&K and Ladakh, which dismissed his bail, saying scrutiny of cellphone records indicated that Andrabi had been in touch with terror operatives across the border.

New Delhi, May 18: India on Monday voiced deep concern over a drone attack targeting the Barakah nuclear facility in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) as it marked a dangerous escalation in the West Asia conflict.

New Delhi’s reaction came a day after a drone struck a generator near the Gulf nation’s sole nuclear power plant, sparking a fire on the complex’s perimeter.

No one has claimed responsibility for the attack. The UAE’s Ministry of Defence said it is working to determine the source of the drone strike.

The incident triggered fears of a sharp escalation in tensions across West Asia.

“India is deeply concerned at the attack targeting the Barakah nuclear facility in the UAE,” the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) said.

“Such actions are unacceptable and represent a dangerous escalation. We urgently call for restraint and a return to dialogue and diplomacy,” it said.