SRINAGAR: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the trial court to revisit its November 8, 2025 order directing framing of charges, including under Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), against accused persons in the 2019 Srinagar Central Jail violence case, and pass a fresh, reasoned order after hearing both sides. The High Court, however, has not discharged the accused or quashed the case, and has directed reconsideration of the charges in accordance with law.
A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani passed the judgment on August 4, 2026, disposing of petitions filed by Arif Ahmad Sheikh and others under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), challenging the trial court’s order in FIR No. 19/2019 registered at Police Station Rainawari, Srinagar.
The judgment was reserved on July 16 and pronounced and uploaded on August 4.
The High Court directed the trial court to reconsider the November 8, 2025 order and pass a fresh reasoned order concerning the framing of charges or discharge of the petitioners under the relevant provisions. The direction, the court made clear, would apply to all accused in the case, including those who had not challenged the trial court order.
The bench observed that the trial court must examine the material on record in the light of the legal principles governing framing of charges, particularly where the prosecution sought to introduce serious UAPA offences through a supplementary charge sheet.
The case relates to an incident at Central Jail Srinagar on April 4, 2019, when jail inmates allegedly created violent disorder, set parts of the jail premises on fire, raised anti-national slogans and pelted stones at jail staff and security personnel.
According to the prosecution case recorded in the High Court judgment, the incident began after Police Station Rainawari received a telephone call from the Central Jail reporting the disturbance. FIR No. 19/2019 was registered under Sections 336 and 436 of the erstwhile Jammu and Kashmir Ranbir Penal Code and Section 13 of the UAPA.
The police said the situation subsequently escalated, with the inmates allegedly engaging in heavy stone pelting and setting barracks ablaze. Senior civil and police officers, including the District Magistrate Srinagar, SSP Srinagar, SP North and SDPO Khanyar, reached the jail and efforts were made to bring the situation under control.
The investigation included seizure of combustible and allegedly incendiary material, recording of witness statements, and examination of jail records and collection of CCTV footage. Ten witnesses were examined under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while 86 statements were recorded under Section 161.
A Special Investigation Team comprising the SP City North, SDPO Khanyar and SHO Rainawari was constituted on April 6, 2019, to investigate the case.
The prosecution filed the main charge sheet before the trial court on February 21, 2024, after obtaining the requisite sanction. It named four accused, while accused Zia Mustafa was shown as having died during investigation. Twenty-one other accused were referred to in the charge sheet, although investigation against them was still continuing.
The first supplementary charge sheet was subsequently filed on September 3, 2024, against 21 accused persons. It invoked, among other provisions, Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 224, 225, 427, 332, 307, 435 and 436 of the RPC and Section 13 of the UAPA.
The prosecution then filed a second supplementary charge sheet on October 28, 2024, against all 26 accused, including the petitioners, introducing Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the UAPA.
The prosecution claimed that further investigation had revealed a “well-planned conspiracy” among the jail inmates and alleged that LPG kitchen cylinders and other inflammable and hazardous material had been used to cause explosions, damage jail structures, set buildings on fire and facilitate a jailbreak.
The investigating agency also alleged that the accused had formed a gang within the jail and that their actions involved arson, rioting, stone pelting, damage to government property and attacks on jail employees and security forces.
The High Court noted, however, that the competent authority had accorded sanction for prosecution under Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA in October 2024.
The petitioners did not merely challenge the allegations generally but focused particularly on the introduction of Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA through the second supplementary charge sheet.
Senior Advocate Vrinda Grover, assisted by Advocate Adil Pandit and Advocate Huzaif, appeared for the petitioners in CRM(M) No. 26/2026. Senior Advocate ZA Qureshi, assisted by Advocate Anurag Verma, appeared in CRM(M) No. 819/2025.
The petitioners argued that there was no new direct or documentary evidence collected during further investigation to justify adding the UAPA provisions. According to them, the second supplementary charge sheet was based substantially on material already available to the investigating agency when the main and first supplementary charge sheets were filed.
They argued that the investigating agency had effectively re-evaluated and reassessed existing material instead of obtaining fresh evidence, which, they contended, was not permissible under the law governing further investigation.
The defence also maintained that the alleged incident was a spontaneous reaction by inmates who had become agitated after a contractor and labourers entered Barrack No. 1 at night in connection with repair and renovation work.
The petitioners further argued that the alleged conduct, even if accepted at face value, did not prima facie meet the statutory requirements of a terrorist act under Section 15 of the UAPA. They relied on several judgments of the Supreme Court and other courts, including Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station, P. Vijayan v. State of Kerala, Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI.
Appearing for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, assisted by Maha Majeed, opposed the petitions.
The prosecution argued that the investigation had been kept open under Section 173(8) of the Code because of the sensitive and serious nature of the case. It maintained that further investigation had revealed a coordinated conspiracy and evidence suggesting that the accused had used LPG cylinders to cause explosions and fires, damage jail property and facilitate an escape.
The prosecution also relied on CCTV footage and said a working copy had been obtained from CFSL Gujarat. According to the prosecution, the SIT had analysed the footage and prepared 50 screenshots showing the date and time of alleged activities, including slogan raising, property damage, use of stones, lathis, fire and LPG cylinders.
The prosecution also pointed to a test identification parade conducted on August 1, 2024, involving four bailed-out accused persons—Imran Aslam Baba, Asif Sultan Syeda, Eycon Parvaiz and Arif Ahmad Sheikh.
The Senior AAG argued that at the stage of framing charges, the court was not required to conduct a mini-trial or determine whether the accused would ultimately be convicted. The prosecution maintained that the material was sufficient to establish a prima facie case and that charges could be framed on the basis of grave suspicion.
The High Court, however, closely examined the three charge sheets and found a significant issue concerning the alleged absence of fresh material.
The bench observed that it did not find any new articles or documents recovered or seized during further investigation, as reflected in Column 14 of the charge sheets.
The court noted that while the number of witnesses increased in the supplementary charge sheets, the second supplementary charge sheet itself stated that the original papers had already been presented before the trial court with the earlier charge sheets.
The court further observed that the SIT was required to submit, along with the second supplementary charge sheet, statements of additional witnesses, if any, recorded after the filing of the first supplementary charge sheet.
The bench said it had “not been able to lay our hands on any statement of witness recorded under Section 161 or 164 of the Code by the SIT subsequent to the filing of the first supplementary charge sheet dated 3rd September 2024.”
The court relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s 2024 judgment in Mariam Fasihuddin and Another v. State by Adugodi Police Station and Another, which held that further investigation resulting in a supplementary report should ordinarily be based on fresh oral or documentary evidence rather than a mere re-evaluation of material already collected.
The High Court also referred to a January 2026 judgment of the Delhi High Court, observing that the power of further investigation is not unbridled and that further investigation must be based on new facts.
A key observation of the High Court concerned the duty of the trial court at the stage of framing charges.
The bench held that although a criminal court must rely on the prosecution case and material collected during investigation, it is required to sift and weigh that material for the limited purpose of determining whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are made out.
In a pointed observation, the court stated: “A criminal court is not supposed to act as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution.”
The bench said the framing of charges is an “important and sensitive step” in a criminal trial and should never be treated as a mere formality.
The court further held that a supplementary charge sheet based on further investigation is justified only where there is discovery of new direct or documentary evidence. It said that further investigation may result in framing of new offences, but merely supplementing earlier evidence without any change in the underlying material does not justify such a course.
The judgment states: “Re-evaluation or Re-assessment of the already recorded evidence backing the initial report(s)/ charge sheet(s) for the purpose of justifying the presentation of a further report/charge sheet under some new offences is not permissible under law.”
The High Court also examined the legal threshold for treating an alleged criminal act as a terrorist act under the UAPA.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur, the bench noted that terrorist activity must be distinguished from an ordinary law-and-order problem or even a serious disturbance of public order.
The judgment, referring to the Supreme Court’s formulation, noted that an offence cannot be treated as a terrorist act merely because its consequences create fear or panic. The requisite intention behind the act is also significant.
The High Court referred to the principle that “intention, action and consequence” must coexist for the relevant terrorist activity provision to be attracted.
It also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in P. Vijayan, observing that where two views are possible at the stage of framing charge and one gives rise only to suspicion rather than grave suspicion, the accused may be discharged from that charge.
The High Court ultimately did not itself discharge the accused or conclude the criminal proceedings. Instead, it directed the trial court to revisit its November 8, 2025 order after giving both the prosecution and the accused a fresh opportunity of being heard.
The court directed the trial judge to pass a fresh, reasoned order regarding framing of charges against, or discharge of, the petitioners under the relevant provisions of law.
The court further clarified that the reconsideration would extend to all accused persons arising out of FIR No. 19/2019, including those who had not challenged the November 8 order.
The High Court also took note of the fact that charges against accused A-1 to A-4 had earlier been framed by the trial court on July 13, 2024 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 336, 427, 332, 307, 435 and 436 of the RPC and Section 13 of the UAPA.
The impugned order of November 8, 2025 had subsequently recorded grave suspicion regarding offences under Sections 120-B, 147, 148, 149, 224, 225, 427, 332, 336, 307, 435 and 436 RPC and Sections 13, 16 and 18 of the UAPA and directed formal framing of charges.
The High Court’s direction now requires the trial court to reconsider that order in light of the legal principles set out in the judgment.
The bench also noted that Section 216 of the Code, corresponding to Section 239 of the BNSS, empowers a criminal court to alter or add to a charge at any time before judgment is pronounced. It observed that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS could be exercised to secure the ends of justice.
Since FIR No. 19/2019 was registered on April 4, 2019 and the main charge sheet was filed on February 21, 2024, the High Court directed the trial court to proceed expeditiously.
The petitions were accordingly disposed of.
