Srinagar, July 12: The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld charges framed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against two accused in a case linked to alleged threat posters issued by the banned terror outfit The Resistance Front (TRF), ruling that posters intended to alienate the people of Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of India are sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 13 of the Act.
A Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed separate appeals filed by Adnan Bashir Bangroo and Mohammad Manan Dar, challenging a July 12, 2025 order of the Special Court under the NIA Act, Srinagar, which had framed charges against them under Sections 13, 18, 39 and, in Dar’s case, Section 40(2) of the UAPA, besides Section 506 of the IPC. The judgment was pronounced on July 3, 2026.
The Bench held that the contents of the posters allegedly recovered from the accused made a deliberate attempt to alienate residents of Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of the country and spread disaffection against the nation, making them sufficient to attract charges under Section 13 of the UAPA.
“The contents of the posters… are 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 case stems from an FIR registered at Shaheed Gunj Police Station following the circulation of a threatening message allegedly issued by TRF through the Telegram channel “Kashmir Fights”, warning polling personnel ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
According to the prosecution, police intercepted the two accused during a vehicle checking operation on March 19, 2024 and recovered 39 TRF posters, a bottle of glue and Rs 1 lakh in cash. The investigation later allegedly uncovered digital and forensic evidence linking the accused to a Pakistan based handler and slain TRF militant Momin Gulzar.
Rejecting the appellants’ plea to quash the charges, the High Court held that at the stage of framing charges, courts are only required to determine whether a prima facie case exists and cannot conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence or hold a “mini trial.”
The Bench noted that the prosecution had placed substantial material on record, including mobile phone analysis, location data, WhatsApp communications, recovery of a photograph of slain TRF militant Momin Gulzar from one accused’s phone, and alleged communication with virtual numbers connected to a Pakistan based handler. It held that these materials prima facie established a larger conspiracy involving members of the banned organisation, justifying charges under Sections 18 and 39 of the UAPA.
The court also upheld the charge under Section 40(2) of the UAPA against Mohammad Manan Dar, observing that the prosecution had produced material indicating he failed to satisfactorily explain the source of the recovered Rs 1 lakh.
The Bench further rejected the argument that the accused had been illegally detained before their formal arrest, observing that pleadings made in an earlier habeas corpus petition could not, by themselves, constitute evidence capable of dislodging the prosecution case at the stage of framing charges. It clarified that such issues form part of the defence and are to be examined during the course of trial.
While dismissing both appeals, the High Court clarified that the observations made in its judgment are only tentative for deciding the validity of the order framing charges and shall not influence the trial court during the conduct of the trial.
