Posters Seeking To Alienate J&K Residents From India Can Attract UAPA: High Court

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has held that posters allegedly intended to alienate residents of Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of India are sufficient, at the stage of framing charges, to prima facie attract an offence under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed appeals filed by Adnan Bashir Bangroo and Mohammad Manan Dar against a Srinagar special court’s order framing charges against them. The High Court said the prosecution had placed sufficient material on record to indicate their alleged involvement in a wider conspiracy linked to a Pakistan-based handler and members of the banned terrorist outfit The Resistance Front (TRF), Live Law and Bar & Bench report.

Posters show ‘deliberate attempt’

“The contents of the posters running across the record are, in our estimation, amply sufficient for charging the appellants with the commission of an offence under Section 13 of the Act. In the text of these posters, a deliberate attempt has been made to alienate the local residents of Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of India, which is sufficient to spread disaffection against the nation,” the Court observed.

The Bench said that while framing charges, a court is only required to determine whether a prima facie case exists. It cannot meticulously examine the evidence or conduct a mini-trial at that stage.

“At the stage of framing of charge, evidence cannot be gone into meticulously. It is immaterial whether the case is based on direct or circumstantial evidence and a charge can be framed if there are materials showing possibility about commission of the offence by the accused as against certainty,” the Court said.

The appeals challenged a July 12, 2025 order of the Additional Sessions Judge, designated as a special court under the National Investigation Agency Act, in Srinagar. The court had framed charges against both accused under Sections 13, 18 and 39 of the UAPA and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Dar was also charged under Section 40(2) of the UAPA.

Threat ahead of 2024 polls

The case arose from a first information report registered at Shaheed Gunj police station after TRF allegedly posted a threatening message on the Telegram channel Kashmir Fights targeting polling officials ahead of the 2024 parliamentary elections.

According to the prosecution, police intercepted a motorcycle carrying Bangroo and Dar during vehicle checking at Jehangir Chowk on March 19, 2024.

Police allegedly found 14 posters hidden under Dar’s shirt and recovered ₹1 lakh in ₹500 notes from him. They allegedly recovered another 25 posters and a bottle of glue from Bangroo.

The prosecution said the posters contained a message issued through the Kashmir Fights Telegram channel. Investigators also allegedly collected forensic and digital evidence linking the two accused to a Pakistan-based handler and slain TRF terrorist Momin Gulzar.

During interrogation, both accused allegedly made statements before an Executive Magistrate. According to the prosecution, Dar said a Pakistan-based handler had persuaded him to work for TRF.

Dar allegedly stated that he and Bangroo had gone to Qamarwari in Srinagar, where an unidentified person handed them a polythene bag containing posters, ₹1 lakh and a bottle of glue. The cash was allegedly meant to be delivered to Gulzar, who was later killed in an encounter.

Investigators also allegedly recovered photographs of Gulzar from Dar’s mobile phone.

Defence challenges evidence

Counsel for Bangroo restricted his challenge to the charges under Sections 18 and 39 of the UAPA. He argued that, apart from an alleged confessional statement before the Executive Magistrate, there was no admissible material linking his client to the offences.

He also contended that the disclosure statements could not be relied upon because no recovery had been made pursuant to them.

Counsel for Dar adopted the same arguments and additionally claimed that his client had been falsely implicated. He relied on an earlier habeas corpus petition alleging that Dar had been illegally detained before his formal arrest.

The High Court rejected the arguments and said the prosecution case extended beyond the alleged confessional statements.

Digital trail backs prosecution case

The Bench referred to mobile phone analysis, location data allegedly placing both accused at Qamarwari on the relevant date, WhatsApp communication records and alleged contact with virtual numbers linked to a Pakistan-based handler.

It also considered the recovery of Gulzar’s photograph from one accused’s mobile phone and the alleged digital link between the posters and the Telegram channel associated with TRF.

“The case against the appellants extends beyond the mere possession of incriminating posters and currency notes. They are further alleged to have been in contact with a Pakistan-based handler and an active terrorist, Momin Gulzar,” the Court observed.

“The physical transportation of these posters alongside unaccounted-for cash demonstrates that the appellants and Momin Gulzar were part of a wider conspiracy to strike terror among the public and to challenge the sovereignty of India. Therefore, at this threshold stage, the contention that there is no evidence to connect the appellants with the offence under Section 18 of the Act is legally unsustainable,” it added.

The Court held that the material prima facie supported the charges under Sections 18 and 39 of the UAPA. It said the recovery of propaganda posters, cash and adhesive material, together with the alleged digital links, indicated that the accused were working as associates of the banned outfit.

Source of ₹1 lakh unexplained

The Bench also found no error in framing a charge against Dar under Section 40(2) of the UAPA. It noted that the prosecution had produced material showing that he had failed to explain the source of the recovered ₹1 lakh and that there were no corresponding bank withdrawals.

The High Court also rejected Dar’s reliance on the earlier habeas corpus petition.

“The bald averments in the petition concerning the appellant’s alleged detention do not constitute evidence, let alone evidence of ‘sterling quality’ capable of proving false implication,” the Court said.

It held that self-serving pleadings could not dislodge the prosecution case at the stage of framing charges and that such arguments were matters of defence to be examined during the trial.

Dismissing both appeals, the High Court clarified that its observations were tentative and should not influence the trial court, which must independently assess the evidence during the trial.

Advocates Shariq Jan Reyaz and Danish Majid Dar represented the accused. Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadiri, assisted by advocate Maha Majeed, appeared for the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir.

Published on: Saturday, July 11, 2026, 06:05 PM IST