Logo

Posters Allegedly Aimed At Alienating Residents From India Justify Framing Of UAPA Charges: J&K&L High Court

Zaved Khan

The J&K High Court dismissed appeals challenging UAPA charges against two accused in a TRF poster case, holding that the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case warranting trial. - Adan Bashir Bangroo and Another v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Advertisement
Posters Allegedly Aimed At Alienating Residents From India Justify Framing Of UAPA Charges: J&K&L High Court
Join Telegram

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has refused to interfere with an order framing charges against Adan Bashir Bangroo and Mohd. Manan Dar in a case linked to alleged activities of the banned outfit The Resistance Front (TRF). Holding that there was sufficient material to raise a prima facie case, the Division Bench dismissed both criminal appeals and allowed the trial to proceed.

Background of the Case

The appeals challenged a July 12, 2025 order of the Additional Sessions Judge (Designated Special Court under the NIA Act), Srinagar, which had framed charges against the two accused under various provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

Advertisement

According to the prosecution, the case originated after police received information about a threatening message allegedly circulated through a social media platform ahead of the 2024 Parliamentary elections. During vehicle checking at Jehangir Chowk, police claimed to have recovered 39 posters, ₹1 lakh in cash, and a bottle of glue from the two accused. The investigation also relied on digital evidence, forensic analysis of mobile phones, and alleged statements made before an Executive Magistrate.

The appellants argued that the charges under Sections 18, 39 and 40(2) of the UAPA were unsupported by legally admissible evidence. They contended that the trial court had relied primarily on alleged confessional statements without independent corroboration.

Take CourtBook Everywhere

Access your account on the go with our mobile app.

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store
CourtBook Mobile App

Court's Observations

The High Court reiterated that at the stage of framing charges, the court is not expected to conduct a detailed examination of the evidence or decide whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed.

Referring to Supreme Court precedents including State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy and Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, the Bench observed that the test at this stage is only whether the material on record raises a strong suspicion or a prima facie case against the accused.

"The bench observed,

'At this stage, the court cannot indulge in a meticulous or critical evaluation of the evidence... nor conduct a mini-trial to determine whether the final matrix would warrant a conviction.'"

The Bench also noted that the contents of the posters themselves were sufficient, at the preliminary stage, to support the charge under Section 13 of the UAPA. It rejected the appellants' reliance on an earlier judgment, observing that the posters allegedly sought to discourage participation in elections and create disaffection.

The Court further found that, apart from the alleged statements, the prosecution had relied on recoveries, forensic examination of mobile phones, location data, WhatsApp communication records, and other technical evidence, all of which could be examined during trial.

Why the High Court Declined to Interfere

The Bench said the trial court's role at the stage of framing charges is limited to determining whether the available material discloses a prima facie case.

Advertisement

"The bench observed,

'The learned trial court was neither required nor positioned to conclusively determine the adequacy of the evidence; it was only tasked with ascertaining whether a prima facie presumption of guilt exists against the appellants.'"

It also declined to consider documents relied upon by one of the appellants from separate habeas corpus proceedings, holding that the issue had to be examined on the basis of the prosecution material available at the stage of framing charges.

Decision

Finding no legal infirmity in the Special Court's order, the High Court dismissed both appeals.

The Bench clarified that its observations were only for deciding the challenge to the framing of charges and should not influence the trial court while deciding the case on merits after evidence is led.

Case Details:

Case Title: Adan Bashir Bangroo and Another v. Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir

Case Number: CrlA(D) No. 64/2025 c/w CrlA(D) No. 70/2025

Judge: Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar

Decision Date: 03 July 2026

Advertisement

Take CourtBook Everywhere

Access your account on the go with our mobile app.

Get it on Google PlayDownload on the App Store
CourtBook Mobile App

Recommended Posts