SRINAGAR: A Special Court designated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) at Sopore has acquitted Huzaif Firdous Bhat of Choora, Sopore, and Ajaz Ahmad Khan of Najibhat, Kreeri, in a case involving the alleged recovery of two hand grenades, 100 rounds of AK-47 ammunition and Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) letter-pad material from a vehicle in Baramulla in September 2020.
In a judgment pronounced on November 5, 2026, Special Judge Feroz Ahmad Khan held that the prosecution had failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt, citing material contradictions among police witnesses, serious lapses in the identification and preservation of the seized articles, an unreliable chain of custody and the absence of independent evidence connecting the accused with any terrorist organisation or specific terrorist activity.
The court directed that both accused, who had remained in judicial custody in the case, be released if not required in any other case. It observed that the prosecution evidence, assessed cumulatively, did not inspire the confidence required for recording a finding of guilt.
“Suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof,” the court observed, adding that the prosecution had failed to travel the distance from suspicion to legal proof.
The 71-page judgment in State through SHO Police Station Baramulla versus Huzaif Firdous Bhat and another, bearing CNR No. JKBA040005422021 and FIR No. 159/2020, was reserved on October 17 and pronounced on November 5.
Feroz Ahmad Khan, Special Judge designated under the UAPA for Baramulla at Sopore, heard the case.
The judgment records that an Additional Public Prosecutor represented the prosecution. The accused were represented by M/s Azim Pandith, Advocate, and associates, and Tajamul Hussain, Advocate, and associates.
The Allegations
According to the prosecution, the case originated on September 16, 2020, when a police party, accompanied by personnel of the Army’s 52 Rashtriya Rifles and the CRPF’s 53 Battalion, established a checkpoint near Kanispora, close to Singhpora crossing on the National Highway in Baramulla.
The checkpoint was set up following information about the movement of unidentified militants who were allegedly looking for an opportunity to carry out a major terrorist attack in the Singhpora area.
The prosecution alleged that a white Maruti car bearing registration number JK05C-6029, travelling from Singhpora towards Baramulla, was stopped and searched. Two hand grenades and 100 live rounds of AK-47 ammunition were allegedly recovered from beneath the driver’s seat.
The driver was identified as Huzaif Firdous Bhat, while Ajaz Ahmad Khan was travelling as a passenger. The police further claimed that photocopies of LeT letter pads were recovered during their personal searches and that the two men disclosed their association with the outfit as overground workers.
The prosecution alleged that the ammunition had been illegally acquired and was being transported towards Baramulla to facilitate terrorist activities.
A docket prepared by Inspector Amardeep Singh was sent to Police Station Baramulla, leading to the registration of FIR No. 159/2020. The original FIR invoked Sections 18, 20 and 39 of the UAPA and Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act.
The two accused were arrested on September 16, 2020, and remained in custody during the proceedings.
Charges Framed
The investigation was assigned to Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Baramulla, Gulzar Rashid Magray.
The police subsequently invoked Sections 18, 23 and 39 of the UAPA, besides Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act, and submitted the chargesheet before the court on March 10, 2021. The court framed charges on July 19, 2021. Both accused pleaded not guilty and sought trial.
The prosecution cited 12 witnesses, including police personnel allegedly associated with the checkpoint and recovery, witnesses to the interrogation proceedings, two personnel who examined the seized ammunition and grenades, and the investigating officer.
Evidence commenced on October 6, 2021, and continued over the following years. The judgment records that the testimony of some witnesses was taken several years after the alleged incident, including that of Head Constable Jaipal Singh on October 22, 2024.
Prosecution’s Case
The Additional Public Prosecutor argued that both accused were associated with the militant organisation LeT and had facilitated the transportation of arms and ammunition for militants.
The prosecution maintained that the recovery had been established through the testimony of police witnesses, who identified the accused as the persons apprehended at the checkpoint and identified the weapons and ammunition produced before the court as the articles recovered from the vehicle.
It argued that the apparent inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses were not material enough to undermine the prosecution case.
The prosecution also submitted that the accused had been found in possession of arms and ammunition without a valid licence or justification, constituting offences under the Arms Act.
It further argued that their association with LeT and assistance in transporting arms and ammunition established the offences under Sections 23 and 39 of the UAPA and sought their conviction.
Defence Arguments
The defence challenged the prosecution narrative on both factual and procedural grounds.
Counsel for the accused argued that the case was fabricated and that the two men had been falsely implicated. They pointed to contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the circumstances of the alleged checkpoint operation, the search of the vehicle and the recovery of the weapons.
The defence also questioned the legality and reliability of the seizure proceedings, arguing that the prosecution had failed to establish a dependable link between the articles allegedly recovered at the spot and those subsequently produced before the court.
The accused denied conscious possession of the arms and ammunition and rejected the allegation that they were associated with LeT or any other terrorist organisation.
In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, both men maintained that they had not been apprehended at any checkpoint but had instead been taken from their respective residences during the night. They alleged that the police had subsequently shown the recovery of arms from them.
The defence further argued that the alleged disclosure statements were inadmissible and that there was no independent evidence establishing conspiracy, terrorist activity, preparatory acts or intentional assistance to a terrorist organisation.
The defence did not produce any witnesses or independent evidence, a circumstance the court later said could not shift the burden of proof away from the prosecution.
Recovery Disputed
A central issue in the judgment was the conflicting testimony of police personnel about who had actually stopped and searched the vehicle and recovered the alleged arms and ammunition.
Inspector Amardeep Singh, the principal prosecution witness, claimed that he had personally searched the vehicle and recovered two grenades and 100 rounds of AK-47 ammunition from beneath the driver’s seat. However, the court found that the testimony of other police witnesses did not provide a consistent account of the recovery.
One witness attributed the search to Head Constable Jaipal Singh, while another account suggested that a different police official had conducted it. The court noted that some witnesses had admitted that the recovery had not taken place in their presence.
The discrepancies were not confined to the identity of the person conducting the search. The witnesses also differed over the number of rounds allegedly recovered and the nature of the material said to be associated with the militant organisation.
The court observed that these were not peripheral contradictions but went to the root of the prosecution’s case, which depended substantially on establishing conscious possession of the alleged weapons by the accused.
Seizure Lapses
The court also identified serious deficiencies in the documentation and preservation of the seized material.
The original polythene bag in which the weapons and ammunition were allegedly recovered was not produced before the court. Inspector Amardeep Singh stated that the bag had worn out, but admitted that he had not mentioned this fact in his initial docket or in his statement before the investigating officer.
The court noted that the recovery memo did not contain distinctive identification marks, batch numbers, colour or weight details of the grenades. No special identification marks had been placed on the recovered ammunition or other articles at the spot.
The investigating officer also admitted that the grenades and ammunition had allegedly been recovered in one packet but were produced before the court in separate packets and bags.
More importantly, Deputy Superintendent of Police Gulzar Rashid Magray admitted that he had handed over the recovered articles to the police malkhana but had not obtained a receipt from the concerned police clerk.
He also acknowledged that no witness statement had been specifically recorded to establish which police official had actually effected the recovery.
The court held that the prosecution was required to establish not merely that weapons had been produced before it, but that the very same articles had been recovered from the accused at the alleged place and time.
It found that the chain connecting the alleged recovery at the checkpoint with the subsequent production of the articles in court had become doubtful because of the absence of distinctive markings and the varying accounts of witnesses.
Expert Evidence
The court also questioned the evidentiary value of the expert examination of the recovered ammunition and grenades.
The witness who examined the ammunition admitted that he did not know where the rounds had been obtained or who had sent them for examination. He stated that the cartridges were of a common type and did not carry special identification marks. He also acknowledged that the rounds could be used in both AK-47 and AK-56 rifles, although the certificate referred to AK-47 ammunition.
The witness who examined the grenades, meanwhile, admitted that they were not sealed at the time of examination and did not bear specific identification markings.
His certificate did not specify the type of grenades or establish whether they contained detonators or wicks. He further acknowledged that the mere presence of a pin and lever did not necessarily establish that a grenade was live.
The court said these shortcomings assumed particular significance because the prosecution had not established a reliable chain of custody for the material objects.
It clarified that the absence of a seal or an independent witness would not, by itself, necessarily demolish a prosecution case. However, when combined with inconsistent recovery testimony, missing identification marks, uncertainty over who conducted the search and gaps in the custody of the seized articles, the cumulative effect could not be ignored.
Confession Questioned
The court also examined the alleged interrogatory or confessional material relied upon by the prosecution to establish the accused’s association with LeT.
The prosecution had produced an interrogatory memo, marked EXPW-8, through three witnesses, including Special Police Officer Aqib Nabi, Constable Abid Hussain and Constable Ajaz Ahmad.
The witnesses, however, did not provide a consistent account of the alleged confession.
One witness admitted that he did not know who had drafted the document and had signed it at the direction of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He also stated that he had not personally witnessed the alleged recovery of weapons.
Another witness stated that no confession had been made in his presence and that he could not remember when, where or what had been written in the document. He maintained that the Deputy Superintendent of Police was in a position to explain its contents.
The court further relied on the investigating officer’s admission that no recovery had been made pursuant to the alleged disclosure statements.
The investigating officer also acknowledged that the investigation had not established the name of any terrorist with whom either accused allegedly had contact.
The court concluded that even apart from the question of admissibility of the alleged confessional material, the prosecution had failed to establish any independent discovery or legally dependable circumstance emerging from those statements that could connect the accused with the offences.
UAPA Ingredients
The court examined the evidence against the specific requirements of the UAPA provisions invoked in the case.
It observed that once the alleged recovery itself became doubtful, the foundation for the charges under Sections 18 and 23 of the UAPA and the Arms Act was substantially weakened.
On the charge under Section 39 of the UAPA, the court held that the prosecution was required to produce reliable evidence demonstrating intentional support or assistance to a terrorist organisation.
“Mere allegation of association, unsupported by dependable independent evidence of intentional assistance, cannot by itself satisfy the standard of proof required for conviction,” the court observed.
It also noted that the prosecution had not produced evidence connecting either accused with an identified terrorist, a terrorist act, the activities of a terrorist organisation or any specific act of intentional assistance.
The investigating officer’s admission that no name of any terrorist with whom the accused allegedly had contact had emerged during the investigation further weakened the prosecution case.
Final Verdict
In its concluding assessment, the court held that the prosecution evidence suffered from material contradictions, omissions and procedural infirmities that made it unsafe to record a conviction.
It observed that the contradictions had to be assessed cumulatively rather than in isolation and that they created substantial and reasonable doubt about the prosecution version.
The court reiterated that the burden of proving the charges beyond reasonable doubt remained with the prosecution and that the accused were not required to establish their innocence.
It consequently acquitted Huzaif Firdous Bhat and Ajaz Ahmad Khan in FIR No. 159/2020 under Sections 23 and 39 of the UAPA and Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act.
The court directed their release from judicial custody if they were not required in any other case. It also ordered that the seized property be dealt with in accordance with law after expiry of the appeal period.
