‘Suspicion cannot replace proof’, the court notes after finding serious contradictions and gaps in the prosecution’s evidence
SRINAGAR — A special court in Jammu and Kashmir has acquitted two youths from north Kashmir’s Baramulla district after they spent nearly six years in custody under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Arms Act.
The acquittal of Huzaif Firdous Bhat of Choora, Sopore, and Ajaz Ahmad Bhat of Kreeri, Baramulla, prompted Kashmir’s chief cleric, Mirwaiz Umar Farooq, to call for accountability, saying the case highlighted the human cost of prolonged detention when evidence ultimately fails to establish guilt.
Special Judge designated under the UAPA, Feroz Ahmad Khan, acquitted the duo on November 5 at the Special Court in Sopore, Baramulla, after finding serious contradictions and gaps in the prosecution’s evidence.
The case was FIR No 159/2020, Police Station Baramulla, registered under Sections 18, 23 and 39 of the UAPA and Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act.
The two were arrested on September 16, 2020, after police claimed to have recovered grenades, ammunition and documents allegedly linked to the Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) from their vehicle during a search near Kanispora on the national highway.
According to the police, the vehicle was carrying two hand grenades, 100 rounds of AK-47 ammunition packed in a polythene bag beneath the driver’s seat, and two photocopies of letterheads/posters bearing the LeT name. Police alleged that the ammunition was being transported from Singhpora towards Baramulla for terrorist activities.
The police said the recovery was made during a joint naka-checking operation by the J&K Police, the Army’s 52 Rashtriya Rifles and the 53rd Battalion of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). Huzaif was described as the driver, Ajaz as the passenger.
The court, however, found that the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged recovery beyond reasonable doubt.
Court Disbelieves the Recovery
The judgment noted that there was no independent witness to support the alleged recovery. It also highlighted inconsistencies in the statements of police witnesses about who conducted the search and whether they were present when the items were allegedly recovered.
“One witness says that PW-1 conducted the search (while) another attributes the search to Jaipal; another states that PW-4 conducted the search; while PW-3 and PW-4 admit that the recovery was not made in their presence,” the court said.
“The prosecution thus has not presented a uniform account on several foundational aspects of the alleged recovery.”
The witnesses also gave conflicting accounts of the seized material. While one referred to 100 rounds of ammunition, another put the number at 40. Their statements also differed over whether the recovered posters were linked to the LeT or Jaish-e-Mohammed.
The court said the discrepancies became more significant when considered with the evidence on identification and preservation of the seized articles.
The accused had maintained that they were picked up from their homes at night, disputing the police version that they were arrested during a vehicle search in Kanispora.
The court observed that the contradictions were not minor discrepancies, as they raised questions about the alleged recovery, the identity of the seized material and its connection to the accused.
“It is settled that while minor discrepancies arising from lapse of time or imperfect recollection may ordinarily be ignored, contradictions which go to the root of the prosecution story and create doubt about the occurrence, recovery, identity of the recovered articles or their connection with the accused cannot be brushed aside as inconsequential.”
Link to Terrorist Not Established
In a crucial finding, the court noted that the investigation had produced no evidence connecting either accused with any identified terrorist, terrorist act, terrorist organisation activity, or any specific act of intentional aid.
“The Investigating Officer admitted that no name of any terrorist with whom the accused allegedly had contact emerged during investigation.”
“The prosecution has not established through cogent and dependable evidence that the arms and ammunition produced before the court were recovered from the conscious possession of the accused in the manner alleged… Once the alleged recovery itself becomes doubtful, the foundation for the offences under Sections 18 and 23 UAPA and Section 7/25 of the Arms Act is substantially weakened.”
“The prosecution must travel the entire distance from suspicion to legal proof. In the present case, that distance has not been traversed,” the court said.
It added that suspicion, however grave, could not replace proof and that the prosecution had failed to establish the essential ingredients of the charges beyond reasonable doubt.
“On an overall assessment, the court finds that the prosecution evidence suffers from such material inconsistencies and infirmities that it would be unsafe to base a conviction upon it.”
“The benefit of such doubt must necessarily go to the accused.”
The court also said that the charge under Section 39 of the UAPA required reliable evidence of intentional support or assistance to a terrorist organisation. An allegation of association, without dependable evidence of such assistance, was insufficient for conviction.
“Mere allegation of association, unsupported by dependable independent evidence of intentional assistance, cannot by itself satisfy the standard of proof required for conviction.”
It ordered the immediate release of the two men, subject to any other legal requirement, and said the seized property should be dealt with according to law after the appeal period.
The six-year detention is central to the reaction the case has drawn. Under the UAPA, bail is exceptionally difficult to obtain: Section 43D(5) bars bail if the court finds a prima facie case, which means many accused remain in custody as undertrials for years while the trial proceeds.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged this pattern. In May 2026, while granting bail in a narco-terror case from Kupwara, the Court cited National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data placed before Parliament by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs:
- All-India UAPA conviction rate, 2019-2023: between 1.5% and 4% (in some formulations cited as 2% to 6%)
- Jammu & Kashmir UAPA conviction rate, 2019-2023: below 1% in every year — 0% in 2019, maximum 0.89% in 2022
The court observed that this meant there was a 99% possibility of acquittal in J&K UAPA cases at the end of trial.
Separate figures submitted to the Lok Sabha showed J&K accounted for the highest number of UAPA arrests between 2019 and 2023 — 3,662 arrests, but only 23 convictions. In 2023 alone, about 42% of national UAPA arrests were made in J&K.
The Supreme Court had already held in Union of India v. K A Najeeb (2021) that prolonged trial delay can itself be a ground for bail even in UAPA cases — a principle critics say is rarely applied in time to prevent years of undertrial detention.
In a post on X, Mirwaiz said it was deeply saddening that the two young men had spent six years in jail before being acquitted after the evidence against them was found unreliable.
“Deeply saddening that two young men from Baramulla had to spend six precious years in jail under stringent anti-terror laws, before being acquitted as the evidence against them was found unreliable. This case once again highlights the indiscriminate arrest and prolonged detention of Kashmiri youth. Will accountability be fixed for their wasted years? Authorities should review this approach and relook and do justice to the thousands of youth under prolonged detention.”
He urged authorities to review their approach and address the cases of other youths who, he said, remain in prolonged detention, and to review the practice of booking young people under anti-terror laws.
AIMIM president Asaduddin Owaisi also reacted on X, calling it a “miscarriage of justice” and asking: “Who will bring back 6 years wasted in jail, will accountability be fixed?”
What Happens Next
The acquittal does not end the legal process automatically. The State can appeal against the judgment within the appeal period, during which the seized property will remain dealt with as per law.
For Huzaif and Ajaz, however, the immediate order is release — after six years in which the court has now held the prosecution never crossed the distance from suspicion to proof.
