Introduction:

In the case of Khursheed Ahmad Lone v. Union Territory, Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Mohammad Yousuf Wani of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court deliberated on the delicate balance between liberty and security in the context of bail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Khursheed Ahmad Lone, the appellant, stood accused under several sections of the UAPA, with the prosecution arguing that his release would jeopardize national security.

Arguments:

The prosecution reiterated typical arguments in UAPA cases, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and its threat to national security. They contended that Lone’s release could interfere with the judicial process and potentially lead to the repetition of offenses, posing a risk to the unity and integrity of India. However, the defense, represented by Advocate Sajad Ahmad Geelani, highlighted Lone’s deteriorating health conditions and argued that there was insufficient evidence to justify his continued incarceration.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Atul Sreedharan, in his insightful opinion, cautioned against unduly prioritizing internal security arguments over substantive evidence, emphasizing the risk of miscarriage of justice. The court noted the prosecution’s reliance on generalized assertions without presenting material evidence linking Lone to the alleged offenses. Justice Sreedharan underscored the need for a prima facie view based on judicially cognizable material before denying liberty under the UAPA. Despite Justice Yousuf Wani’s partial disagreement with certain observations, the division bench ultimately granted bail to Lone, emphasizing procedural lapses and the absence of compelling reasons for his re-arrest after a nine-year period of freedom.