The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court at Srinagar, on 31st July 2025, dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Zahoor Ahmad Mir, who had sought bail in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The court upheld the order passed by the Special Judge (UAPA), Anantnag, denying bail and observed that strong prima facie evidence existed against the accused.
“Given the stage of trial and nature of allegations, the appellant does not deserve concession of bail.” — Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Parihar
Background of the Case
Zahoor Ahmad Mir, aged 37 and a resident of Anantnag, was arrested in connection with FIR No. 30/2022 registered at Police Station Pahalgam. He is facing charges under Sections 18, 19, and 39 of the UAPA for allegedly assisting and harbouring terrorists belonging to the Hizbul Mujahideen outfit.
Read also: Supreme Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Meera Devi in NDPS Case
According to the prosecution, Zahoor was caught during a joint search operation on 6th May 2022 and disclosed his links with militants, including providing them with logistical support and safe shelter in forest areas.
- He allegedly worked in close coordination with known terrorists like Adil Gulzar, Roshan Zameer, and Ashraf Molvi.
- He was reported to have supported militants by offering food and shelter in the Srichen forests, along with co-accused Mohammad Iqbal Khan.
- Zahoor’s disclosure reportedly led to a cordon operation in Hokard Forest, where three militants were killed.
- His familial ties with other militants, including Nazir Ahmad Mir (killed) and Mudassir Mir (facing UAPA charges), were also cited.
Read also: Supreme Court: No Fixed Deadline for Speaker in Disqualification Cases
The counsel for Zahoor argued that:
- He was arrested a day before the alleged operation and was falsely implicated.
- He was used as a human shield during the operation.
- There was no incriminating material from the 7 witnesses already examined out of 26 listed.
However, the court noted that Zahoor failed to counter the prosecution's version with any substantial material evidence.
The division bench comprising Justice Sanjay Parihar and Justice Sanjeev Kumar emphasized the restrictive nature of granting bail under Section 43-D of the UAPA.
Read also: Supreme Court Quashes FIR in Bengaluru Land Dispute, Highlights Misuse of Criminal Law
“The intention of the legislature is to make jail the rule and bail the exception under UAPA.” — Court citing Zahoor Watali (2019) and Gurwinder Singh (2024)
The court added that the evidence on record, including Zahoor’s disclosure and links with the eliminated terrorists, establishes a strong prima facie case. The bail could not be granted at this stage, especially since most of the prosecution witnesses are yet to be examined.
The High Court held that:
- The trial court rightly rejected the bail application.
- The charges under Chapter IV and VI of UAPA are serious and backed by credible material.
- The accused may, however, file a fresh bail application before the trial court if a change in circumstances occurs.
“We find no infirmity in the impugned order… Appeal is, therefore, dismissed.”
Case: Zahoor Ahmad Mir vs UT of J&K
FIR No.: 30/2022 (P/S Pahalgam)
Case No.: CrlA(D) No. 82/2024
Judgment Date: 31 July 2025