Prolonged Incarceration and Uncorroborated Disclosure Statement Lead to Bail for Burhan Ahmad Mattoo
In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted bail to Burhan Ahmad Mattoo, who was accused under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The court, comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, delivered the decision on May 7, 2026, allowing Mattoo's appeal against the trial court's earlier rejection of his bail application.
Mattoo was arrested in November 2021 following a disclosure statement made by a co-accused, Hafiz Abdullah Malik, who alleged Mattoo's involvement as an "Over Ground Worker" for the banned terrorist organization Lashkar-e-Taiba. Despite being charged under multiple sections of the UAPA, including Sections 13, 18-B, 20, 23, 33, and 39, the High Court found the evidence presented against Mattoo insufficient for continued detention.
The court emphasized the lack of substantive evidence, noting that the prosecution had only examined 13 out of 30 witnesses over a span of more than four years. Furthermore, none of the examined witnesses had implicated Mattoo in the offenses charged. The judgment referenced the Supreme Court's observations in Union of India v. K. A. Najeeb, which highlighted prolonged incarceration and slow trial progress as valid considerations for granting bail.
The High Court criticized the reliance solely on the co-accused's disclosure statement, which was not corroborated by any incriminating recovery or evidence against Mattoo. The judges underscored that such statements alone cannot justify prolonged detention under UAPA's stringent Section 43-D(5).
In granting bail, the court imposed several conditions on Mattoo, including furnishing two solvent sureties of Rs. 1,00,000 each, appearing before the trial court on scheduled dates, and refraining from contacting prosecution witnesses. The court also restricted Mattoo from leaving the jurisdiction of Jammu and Kashmir without prior court permission and from indulging in similar offenses.
The judgment reflects a significant stance on bail under UAPA, acknowledging the need for substantive evidence and the implications of prolonged detention without trial progress. Legal experts have noted the decision as pivotal in balancing national security concerns with individual rights under the law.
Bottom line:-
Prolonged incarceration and lack of substantive evidence against the accused, apart from the disclosure statement of a co-accused, can justify bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, despite the stringent conditions of Section 43-D(5).
Statutory provision(s): Sections 13, 18-B, 20, 23, 33, 39, 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967; Section 307 IPC; 7/25 Arms Act
