The High Court of J&K and Ladakh Tuesday dismissed the government’s plea calling in question the bail granted to elderly accused in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A division bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Muhammad Yousuf Wani rejected the appeal filed by the government through Police Station Bijbehara against the bail order in favour of the 70-year-old accused, Ghulam Nabi Sumji, passed by the Special Judge designated under the UAPA at Anantnag,
The bench held that the trial court committed no illegality or perversity in granting bail to the accused.
The case relates to FIR No. 54 of 2024, registered at Police Station Bijbehara under Sections 10 and 13 of the UAPA and Sections 121 and 121-A of the IPC.
Initially, the trial court had granted an interim bail to the accused on December 6, 2025, which was subsequently made absolute on December 29, 2025.
After examining the record and rival submissions, the High Court, in its decision noted that there was “no illegality or perversity” in the orders passed by the trial court and dismissed the UT’s appeal.
The Court held that offences under Sections 10 and 13 of the UAPA fall under Chapter III of the Act and therefore do not attract the statutory embargo contained in Section 43-D(5), which applies to offences falling under Chapters IV and VI.
The bench noted that the offences under Sections 121 and 121-A of the IPC were not established during the investigation and were subsequently dropped from the FIR.
While considering bail, a court is not required to conduct a preliminary trial or determine the guilt or innocence of the accused, which can only be decided after trial, it said.
The Court observed that “prima facie true,” in the context of Section 43-D (5) UAPA, means something more than mere suspicion or conjecture and something less than ‘proved’. “The expression has to be assessed on the facts of each individual case”.
Furthermore, the Court observed that in non-bailable offences which do not carry the punishment of death or imprisonment for life in the alternative, bail is the rule and its denial an exception, particularly where there is no material showing that the accused would flee from justice or tamper with prosecution evidence.
“The personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution is a fundamental value and that the power to deny bail must be exercised judiciously and not casually”, the court said.
The court observed that the conditions imposed by the trial court were sufficient to address the prosecution’s apprehensions regarding misuse of bail.
Observing that there seemed to be no merit in the appeal, the bench dismissed the same and upheld the bail granted to the accused.
