The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh dismissed a bail appeal filed by two accused under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), holding that the Special Court's refusal of bail was legally sound, primarily on account of the investigation being at a nascent stage. The Court, however, granted liberty to the appellants to move a fresh bail application before the Special Court once the chargesheet is filed.
On 24th October 2025, Police Station Baramulla received credible intelligence that a society named Idar-e-Falah-u-Darien (IDF), Baramulla, was installing donation boxes at various locations to collect funds allegedly being diverted to promote secessionist ideology. The society was reportedly affiliated with banned organisations including Jamaat-e-Islami J&K and Tehreek-e-Hurriyat Kashmir. FIR No. 208/2025 was registered under Section 13 of the UAPA. The President of the society, Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat (Appellant No. 1), and its Secretary, Saleem Yousuf Makai (Appellant No. 2), were arrested on 25th November 2025. Raids at their residences yielded books, mobile phones, a laptop, research files, and Rs. 3.50 Lakhs in unaccounted cash from a related premises. The Special Court, Baramulla at Sopore rejected their bail application on 31st January 2026, primarily citing the early stage of investigation and pending FSL report on seized electronic devices.
The appellants contended that Section 43-D(5) of UAPA — the stringent bail bar — was wrongly applied to an offence under Section 13, which does not attract that provision. They further argued that written grounds of arrest were never provided, violating fundamental rights, and that mere possession of unbanned literature cannot constitute an offence. They relied on the Supreme Court's landmark ruling in Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, (2022) 14 SCC 766. The State countered that the Special Court rejected bail primarily due to the infancy of investigation, not solely on Section 43-D(5), that arrest memos and grounds were duly provided, and that the evidence goes far beyond mere book possession — pointing to active propagation of secessionist ideology.
The division bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli & Justice Rajnesh Oswal of High Court found that the Special Court was guided primarily by the nascent stage of investigation and the pending FSL report — not solely by Section 43-D(5). On the grounds of arrest issue, the Court noted it was never raised before the Special Court and left it open. On the merits of Section 13 applicability, the Court declined to comment, leaving it for the Special Court. Crucially, the Court distinguished Thwaha Fasal (supra), observing that in that case bail was granted after a chargesheet had already been filed and examined — a situation materially different from the present one where chargesheet was still pending.
Case Details:
Case No.: CrlA(D) No. 06/2026
Bench: Chief Justice Arun Palli & Justice Rajnesh Oswal
Appellants: Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat & Saleem Yousuf Makai
Respondent: Union Territory of J&K through Police Station Baramulla
Picture Source :
