Bail plea in UAPA case cannot be heard by regular Sessions Court: Court

29/09/2026

JAMMU, Sep 28: A court in Jammu has held that a regular Sessions Court cannot entertain a bail application under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) when a Special Court has already been designated under the National Investigation Agency Act.
The ruling came in a bail application filed by Inderpal Singh, who is facing proceedings in FIR No. 03/2026 registered at Police Station CID Jammu under various provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Section 13 of the UAPA. The order was passed by Anoop Kumar Sharma, 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, on September 28.
The bail application had originally been filed before the Court of 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, which had been notified as a Special Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act for Jammu Province for offences under the UAPA. Following the Presiding Officer's leave, the Principal Sessions Judge Jammu had transferred the application to the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge for further orders.
The prosecution, represented by Manmohit Sharma, APP, objected to the jurisdiction of the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, contending that the bail application could only be considered by the designated Special Court. The prosecution relied upon the Supreme Court judgment in State of West Bengal vs Jayeeta Dass.
On behalf of the applicant, K.S. Johal, Senior Advocate, argued that the applicant should not be left without a remedy merely because the Presiding Officer of the designated court was unavailable. He also relied upon judgments including Deepa Singh & Others vs State of NCT Delhi and State of J&K vs Hilal Ahmad Parray.
After examining the statutory scheme, the court held that the Government of Jammu & Kashmir had already exercised its power under Section 22 of the NIA Act by notifying the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, as a Special Court for Jammu Province for UAPA offences.
The court observed that once such a Special Court has been notified, a regular Sessions Judge cannot assume the jurisdiction of the Special Court merely because its Presiding Officer is temporarily unavailable.
The court relied upon the High Court's earlier ruling in State of J&K vs Hilal Ahmad Parray, which held that bail in a UAPA offence can be granted or refused only by the Special Court or, in its absence, by a Sessions Court exercising the powers of a Special Court.
The court also rejected the argument that the bail application could be considered because it had initially been pending before the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in his capacity as a regular Sessions Judge. It further relied upon the Supreme Court's ruling in State of West Bengal vs Jayeeta Dass, observing that Section 22 of the NIA Act applies to cases investigated by the State Police insofar as jurisdiction to try scheduled offences is concerned.
"Viewed thus, this court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the instant bail application," the court held, directing that the application be submitted back to the Principal Sessions Judge Jammu for passing further appropriate orders.
The applicant was represented by Johal & Associates, Advocates, while the prosecution was represented by Manmohit Sharma, APP.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty