news details |
|
|
| HC upholds UAPA bail rejection | | | Early Times Report
Jammu, May 20: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the rejection of bail to two accused booked under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, while granting them liberty to approach the Special Court afresh after filing of the chargesheet.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal passed the judgment in CrlA(D) No. 06/2026, filed by Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat and Saleem Yousuf Makai against the Union Territory of J&K through Police Station Baramulla. The judgment was reserved on May 13, 2026, and pronounced on May 20, 2026.
The appellants had challenged the order dated January 31, 2026, passed by the Special Judge designated under UAPA, Baramulla at Sopore, whereby their bail application in FIR No. 208/2025 under Section 13 of UAPA was rejected.
The accused contended that the Special Court had wrongly applied the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, which, according to them, was not applicable to an offence under Section 13. They also argued that written grounds of arrest were not supplied to them and that there was no concrete incriminating material on record except alleged possession of certain literature.
Opposing the appeal, Senior AAG Mohsin Qadiri with Maha Majeed submitted that the investigation was actively underway and that substantial material had surfaced, including witness statements, electronic evidence and forensic material. The prosecution further stated that FSL opinion regarding data extracted from seized electronic devices had been received and was under examination.
As per the prosecution case, Police Station Baramulla received information on October 24, 2025, that a society operating under the name Idar-e-Falah-u-Darien, Baramulla, was allegedly involved in unlawful activities by installing donation boxes at various locations for collection of funds. It was alleged that the collected funds were suspected to be diverted for promoting secessionist ideology and that members of the managing body had affiliation with banned organisations.
The Court noted that during investigation, police seized documents, donation boxes, books, mobile phones, a laptop, research-related files, a CPU and Rs 3.50 lakh unaccounted cash. The prosecution alleged that the material appeared to be connected with unlawful propagation and indoctrination activities prejudicial to security and sovereignty.
Rejecting the plea that the Special Court had wrongly invoked Section 43-D(5), the Bench observed that the bail application was not rejected solely on the basis of the statutory bar, but primarily because the investigation was at a nascent stage and forensic examination of seized digital material was awaited.
On the contention that grounds of arrest were not provided, the High Court observed that this plea had not been raised before the Special Court. The Bench, however, left the issue open for the appellants to raise before the Special Court at an appropriate stage.
The Court also declined to return any finding on the argument that mere possession of unbanned books would not attract Section 13 of UAPA, holding that the issue related to the merits of the prosecution case and should be considered by the Special Court at the appropriate stage.
Finding no ground to interfere with the Special Court’s order, the High Court held that the order was legally sound and within jurisdiction. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellants to move a fresh bail application after submission of the chargesheet.
Advocates Salih Pirzada and Ahmad Basaud appeared for the appellants, while Senior AAG Mohsin Qadiri with Maha Majeed represented the UT. (JNF) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
