SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the re jection of bail to two Baramulla residents arrested in connection with a UAPA case involving allegations of promoting secessionist ideology and unlawful activities through a charitable organisation.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal dismissed the appeal filed by Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat and Saleem Yousuf Makai against an order of the Special Court designated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act at Sopore.
The judgment in CrlA(D) No. 06/2026 was reserved on May 13 and pronounced on May 20, 2026.
The appellants were represented by advocates Salih Pirzada and Ahmad Basaud, while the Union Territory was represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri assisted by Maha Majeed.
The case arises out of FIR No. 208/2025 registered at Police Station Baramulla under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. According to the prosecution, police had received information in October 2025 that a society operating under the name Idar-e-Falah-u-Darien was allegedly collecting funds through donation boxes installed across Baramulla and diverting them towards “promotion of secessionist ideology”.
The prosecution further alleged that members of the organisation had links with banned outfits including Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir and Tehreek-e-Hurriyat Kashmir.
During investigation, police conducted raids at residences and offices linked to the accused and seized books, laptops, mobile phones, documents and electronic devices. Cash amounting to Rs 3.50 lakh was also recovered during searches conducted in connection with the case.
The appellants argued before the High Court that the Special Court had wrongly invoked the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA while rejecting bail. They further contended that they were not supplied grounds of arrest and that the allegations against them were based merely on possession of literature.
The High Court, however, observed that the Special Court had primarily declined bail because the investigation was still at a preliminary stage and forensic examination of electronic devices was pending.
“In fact, the learned Special Court was guided primarily by the nascent stage of the investigation in rejecting the bail application preferred by the appellants,” the court said.
Rejecting the argument regarding mere possession of literature, the Bench noted the prosecution’s contention that the accused were allegedly “actively instrumental in propagating secessionist ideology and inciting disaffection against the Union of India”.
The court, however, refrained from making observations on the merits of the allegations at this stage.
“As this submission relates strictly to the merits of the prosecution’s case, we deem it inappropriate to return any finding on this aspect at this juncture,” the judgment stated.
On the issue of arrest grounds, the Bench said the matter had not been raised before the Special Court earlier and therefore no finding was being returned on the question at this stage.
The High Court also noted that the chargesheet was likely to be filed shortly and granted liberty to the appellants to seek fresh bail after submission of the chargesheet.
“Once the chargesheet is filed, the appellants shall be at liberty to file a fresh application for bail,” the Bench observed.
While dismissing the appeal, the court held that the Special Court’s order was “legally sound and within its jurisdiction”.
