Court Cites Lack of Strong Evidence and Prolonged Incarceration as Key Reasons for Bail
In a significant judgment, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has granted bail to Shabnam Akhter, who was charged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The Division Bench, comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar, delivered the judgment on February 12, 2026, setting aside the order of the Trial Court which had denied her bail.
The case against Akhter stemmed from allegations linking her to terrorist activities due to her association with her husband, Zaffer Iqbal, who was allegedly connected to the Lashkar-e-Taiba organisation. The prosecution had claimed that Akhter was involved in receiving funds meant for terrorist activities and had been in possession of cash received from Pakistan.
The High Court, however, found that the prosecution's evidence was weak. It noted that Akhter was married to the co-accused merely a month before her arrest and that there was no material indicating her direct involvement or intention to further terrorist activities. The Court emphasized that mere possession of cash, without evidence of intent, does not substantiate the charges under Sections 38 and 40 of the UAPA.
The bench cited key Supreme Court judgments, including the cases of Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and K.A. Najeeb, which stress the importance of prima facie evidence and prolonged incarceration as factors in bail considerations. The Court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against Akhter were prima facie true and highlighted the unlikelihood of an early trial conclusion.
In its decision, the Court imposed several conditions for Akhter's bail, including a personal bond and sureties, regular court appearances, and restrictions on leaving the jurisdiction without permission.
This judgment underscores the judiciary's balanced approach in cases involving serious allegations under stringent laws like the UAPA, ensuring that individual rights are protected while addressing national security concerns.
Bottom Line:
UAPA - Bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act - Prolonged incarceration and lack of strong prima facie material against the accused can justify granting bail, even in cases involving serious allegations under UAPA.
Statutory provision(s): Sections 13, 38, 39, 40, 43D of UAPA, 1967
Shabnam Akhter v. U.T. of Jammu and Kashmir, (Jammu And Kashmir)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2853317
