Jammu and Kashmir High Court’s Landmark Decision on UAPA
The Jammu and Kashmir High Court has recently ruled that posters aiming to create a divide between residents of Jammu and Kashmir and the rest of India can be prosecuted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This decision was made in the case of Adnan Bashir Bangroo vs. Union Territory of J&K. A Division Bench consisting of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar determined that the content of the posters indicated a clear intent to alienate the region’s residents and promote discontent against the nation.
Context and Court Ruling
The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence from the prosecution to presume that the accused were part of a broader conspiracy involving a handler based in Pakistan and members of the banned terrorist group, The Resistance Front (TRF). The court, therefore, found no grounds to interfere with the charges that had been framed.
Justice Oswal and Justice Parihar emphasized that the posters’ content was ample to charge the appellants under Section 13 of the UAPA. This section deals with punishment for unlawful activities, which, in this case, involved spreading disaffection against the Indian nation.
Legal Proceedings and Charges
The appeals under consideration were filed by Adnan Bashir Bangroo and Mohammad Manan Dar. They challenged a prior order by a Srinagar sessions court dated July 12, 2025, which framed charges against them under several sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including Section 506 for criminal intimidation. Dar faced additional charges under Section 40(2) of the UAPA for allegedly raising or collecting funds for a terrorist organization.
The case originated from a first information report (FIR) filed at the Shaheed Gunj police station. The report was based on a threatening message from TRF through the Telegram channel “Kashmir Fights,” which targeted polling officials before the 2024 parliamentary elections. During a vehicle inspection on March 19, 2024, authorities reportedly discovered 39 TRF posters, adhesive materials, and ₹1 lakh in cash from the accused, alongside forensic and digital evidence linking them to a handler in Pakistan and slain TRF terrorist Momin Gulzar.
Defense and Court’s Rejection
Adnan Bashir Bangroo’s defense limited its challenge to the charges under Sections 18 and 39 of the UAPA, arguing a lack of admissible material beyond an alleged confessional statement made to an executive magistrate. Similarly, Mohammad Manan Dar challenged the charges, claiming false implication and referencing earlier habeas corpus proceedings concerning his detention.
The High Court dismissed these defenses, highlighting the prosecution’s reliance on more than just confessional statements. The court noted technical and forensic evidence, including mobile phone data and communications that supported the charges. Additionally, the court found no error in the charges under Section 40(2), as Dar could not explain the source of the recovered cash.
The Bench reiterated that arguments based on self-serving claims lack the “sterling quality” necessary to overturn the prosecution’s case at this preliminary stage. The court emphasized that these matters should be explored during the trial rather than at the charge-framing stage. Consequently, both appeals were dismissed, with the court clarifying that its observations should not influence the trial court’s independent evaluation of evidence.
More Read
Advocates Shariq Jan Reyaz and Danish Majid Dar represented the accused, while Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri with Advocate Maha Majeed appeared for the Union Territory of J&K.
[Read Judgment]
