HC upholds bail in UAPA case, dismisses UT’s appeal

Sections 10, 13 UAPA do not attract Section 43D(5) embargo; court says bail cannot become punishment before trial

09/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 8: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed an appeal filed by the Union Territory challenging the grant of bail to Ghulam Nabi Sumji in a case registered at Police Station Bijbehara under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, holding that the trial court committed no illegality or perversity in granting him bail. A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani upheld the orders passed by the Special Judge designated under the UAPA at Anantnag, who had initially granted interim bail to Sumji on December 6, 2025, and subsequently made the relief absolute on December 29, 2025. The case arose from FIR No. 54 of 2024 registered at Police Station Bijbehara. According to the prosecution, certain leaders and members of the Muslim Conference, J&K Sumji Group, despite the organisation having been declared unlawful, were allegedly involved in unlawful activities and provoking youth to support secession of Jammu and Kashmir from the Union of India.
The prosecution further alleged that a search of the respondent's premises resulted in the recovery of documents and other material linked to the organisation. The UT challenged the bail orders, alleging that the trial court had entered into the merits of the case and conducted a "mini-trial" while assessing the material collected during investigation. It was also argued that the accused was allegedly continuing activities linked to a banned organisation and could misuse the concession of bail.
Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri, assisted by Maha Majeed, appeared for the UT, while Saif Ul Islam Malik and Mudasir Ahmad represented the respondent.
The High Court, however, noted that offences under Sections 10 and 13 of the UAPA fall under Chapter III and therefore do not attract the statutory embargo under Section 43D(5), which applies to offences under Chapters IV and VI.
The Bench also noted that offences under Sections 121 and 121-A of the IPC were not found established during investigation and were subsequently dropped by the investigating agency.
Elaborating on the principles governing bail, the court observed that a judge considering a bail application is not required to conduct a preliminary trial or determine whether the accused would ultimately be convicted or acquitted. Such questions, the Bench said, are to be determined after the evidence is led and the trial concludes.
The court said judicial discretion in bail matters must take into account the possibility of witnesses being influenced, investigation being hampered and the judicial process being impeded, while balancing individual liberty with the larger interests of society and the State. The Bench also emphasised that the power to grant or refuse bail cannot be exercised in a manner that effectively amounts to punishment before trial. It observed that relevant considerations include whether the accused would remain available for trial and whether there was a likelihood of misuse of liberty by tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
The court further observed that in non-bailable offences not punishable with death or life imprisonment in the alternative, "bail is a rule and its denial an exception", particularly where there is no material indicating that the accused would abscond or tamper with prosecution witnesses.
Finding that there was no adverse material regarding violation of the bail conditions imposed by the trial court, the Bench held that the UT's appeal lacked merit and dismissed it.
The trial court had also kept the prosecution at liberty to seek cancellation of bail in the event of any breach of the conditions.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty