The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has quashed the order of the Poonch Special Court that had earlier refused bail to Farooq Ahmed, accused of links with the banned Jammu & Kashmir Ghaznavi Force (JKGF). The division bench, comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, directed the trial court to reconsider Ahmed’s bail plea afresh under the correct interpretation of Section 43-D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Read also:- Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape FIR Against Bengaluru Man: Judge Rules Relationship From
Background
Farooq Ahmed, a 30-year-old resident of Derai Dabsi in Poonch, was arrested in August 2021 and has remained in custody since then. He was booked under several sections of the UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly collecting funds and recruiting youth for JKGF, a banned militant outfit.
During the investigation, the police claimed to have recovered over ₹19 lakh and several posters linked to the organisation. The prosecution alleged that Ahmed and his co-accused were in touch with handlers from across the border and were raising funds for terror activities.
However, the defence argued that the prosecution’s evidence was weak and based largely on “disclosure statements” without corroboration. Ahmed’s counsel, Advocate I.H. Bhat, submitted that the trial court had failed to apply its mind while rejecting bail and that no credible evidence linked his client directly to any terrorist activity.
Read also:- Gauhati High Court Upholds Nagaland's Right to Exclude Army Officer's Daughter from State MBBS
Court’s Observations
The bench noted that the trial court had not properly understood the requirement of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, which restricts bail only when there are “reasonable grounds” to believe the accusations are prima facie true.
“The trial court’s remark that it is ‘difficult to form an opinion at this stage’ virtually amounts to shirking its statutory duty,” the judges observed.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali (2019), the bench clarified that the degree of satisfaction under Section 43-D(5) must be based on a careful assessment of the case material, not on vague apprehensions.
Justice Parihar further added, “The trial court was duty-bound to examine whether the material placed before it was sufficient even to raise a suspicion of the accused’s involvement. Without such an opinion, the denial of bail cannot stand.”
The judges also cited Union of India vs. Shiv Shanker Kesari (2007), explaining that the term “reasonable grounds” means substantial probable cause, not mere conjecture or assumption.
Decision
Finding the lower court’s reasoning legally unsustainable, the High Court set aside the bail rejection order dated December 31, 2024. The bench remanded the case back to the trial court, directing it to rehear both sides and issue a fresh, reasoned order in line with the UAPA’s mandate.
Read also:- Supreme Court Refuses to Quash Criminal Case Over Babri Masjid Social Media Post, Says "Don't
The court clarified that it was not commenting on the merits of the allegations and that the trial court must decide independently after hearing the prosecution and the defence.
Farooq Ahmed’s bail plea will now be heard again on November 17, 2025, at the Special Court in Poonch.
With this, the appeal stood disposed of.
Case: Farooq Ahmed vs Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir
Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, at Jammu
Bench: Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar
Case No.: Criminal Appeal (D) No. 02 of 2025
Appellant: Farooq Ahmed, 30, resident of Derai Dabsi, Poonch (currently in Central Jail Kot Bhalwal)
Respondent: Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through SHO, Police Station Mendhar
Date of Judgment: 17 October 2025
