UAPA | J&K&L High Court Denies Bail To Baramulla Society Office Bearers Accused Of Promoting Secessionist Ideology Through Donations

The Court held that the Special Court had primarily been guided by the nascent stage of the investigation and the need to unearth a larger conspiracy.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal, while observing that “the learned Special Court was guided primarily by the nascent stage of the investigation in the instant case and the need to conduct further investigation to unearth the larger conspiracy,” held that the impugned order was legally sound and within jurisdiction.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 by the President and Secretary of Idar-e-Falah-u-Darien, Baramulla, challenging order passed by the Special Judge designated under the UAPA, Baramulla at Sopore, rejecting their bail application.

On 24th October 2025, Police Station Baramulla had received credible information that a society operating under the name Idar-e-Falah-u-Darien, Baramulla, was involved in unlawful activities by installing donation boxes at various locations for collection of funds, and there was strong suspicion that collected funds were being diverted to promote secessionist ideology.

It further surfaced that the managing body of the society had affiliation with banned organisations, including Jamaate-Islami-e-Jammu and Kashmir and Tehreek-e-Hurriyat Kashmir, which were linked with unlawful and separatist activities for diversion of funds towards terror related activities.

Subsequently, an FIR was registered under Section 13 of the UAPA. The society was presided over by appellant No.1 (Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat) and assisted by its Secretary, appellant No.2 (Saleem Yousuf Makai). Notice under Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita was issued to them. The President along with Secretary produced documents, which were seized, and donation boxes installed at various shops in Baramulla Town were also seized.

During a raid at the residence of appellant No.1, seven books, two mobile phones, and a laptop were seized. A raid at the residence of appellant No.2 led to recovery of books and a mobile phone. A raid was conducted at the office of the Centre for Research and Policy Studies where research related files were seized. 

Another search at the residence of Ghulam Rasool Pandit led to recovery and seizure of Rs.3.50 lakhs as unaccounted cash. The documents seized from the residence of the appellants contained material suspected to be used for unlawful propagation and indoctrination activities, prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of the Union Territory.

The appellants contended that the Special Court had erroneously invoked the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA to deny bail, arguing that the said provision was inapplicable to an offence under Section 13. They also contended that they were not provided with written grounds of arrest, and that mere possession of unbanned books could not attract an offence under Section 13.

Court's Observations:

Perusing the impugned order, the Court noted that the Special Court had recorded,

“.. On overall consideration of the matter, the Court is satisfied that there exists reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the applicants are prima facie made out.” The Bench observed that this was not the solitary ground for rejection. The Court stated,

“... In fact, the learned Special Court was guided primarily by the nascent stage of the investigation in the instant case and the need to conduct further investigation to unearth the larger conspiracy.”

On the ground regarding non-supply of grounds of arrest, the Court perused the application filed before the Special Court and found that no such ground was ever raised therein. The respondent had categorically stated that arrest memos and separate intimation memos were prepared on the spot and the grounds of arrest were duly conveyed.

The Court held,

“... Given that this factual assertion is disputed by the respondents, and noting that the learned Special Court had no occasion to examine the issue in the absence of any pleadings to that effect, we refrain from returning any finding on this aspect at this stage. We leave this issue open to be raised before the learned Special Court. Consequently, this contention also stands rejected.”

The Court noted that the respondent had submitted that the case diary and witness statements contained ample material showing the appellants' active involvement in propagating secessionist ideology and inciting disaffection against the Union of India. The Forensic Science Laboratory opinion had been received regarding a Hard Disk Drive containing extracted data from seized electronic devices, which was undergoing thorough examination.

The Court further noted that the investigation was actively ongoing, and the Investigating Officer was required to file the charge sheet within the statutorily prescribed period, with only a few days remaining for its submission.

The Court thus found no ground to warrant interference, holding that the order passed by the Special Court was legally sound and within its jurisdiction. The appeal was disposed of with liberty to the appellants to move a fresh application for bail before the learned Special Court after the charge sheet was submitted.

Case Title: Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat & Anr. v. Union Territory of J&K

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)

Click here to read/download Judgment