Sloganeering For Secession Alongside Separatist Leader Can Attract UAPA: J&K&L High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order

The Court held that the material on record, including allegations of leading a mob with the head of a proscribed separatist organisation, raising anti-national slogans, and inciting violence against security forces, disclosed a strong suspicion sufficient to put the accused on trial.

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by the Union Territory against the order passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge (Designated Special Court under NIA Act), Kupwara, whereby the respondent, Mohd Yousuf Lone, was discharged from offences punishable under Section 171-C, 171-F RPC and Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA).

A Bench of Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani, while allowing the appeal, observed,

"The sloganeering for secession, raised by an accused leading a mob in the company of the head of a proscribed separatist organisation, and coupled with incitement of the public and violence against security forces, is capable, on a prima facie appreciation, of falling squarely within this definition."

The Court further observed,

"At this stage, we do not make any definitive finding on the guilt or innocence of the respondent, nor are we expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the case. However, when specific material is brought on record that, on the face of it, discloses the commission of an offence and the complicity of the respondent, the Trial Court cannot act as a mute spectator and shut the doors of trial without assigning valid legal reasons."

The genesis of the case is rooted in an incident of 8th November 2013, when a docket was received by Police Station Kupwara from the incharge police patrolling party reporting that while performing patrolling duty, the police party noticed a procession taken out by separatist Hurriyat front-runner Syed Ali Shah Geelani along with the respondent, Mohd Yousuf Lone.

The participants in the procession were raising slogans against the unity and integrity of India and inciting the public for challenging India's territorial sovereignty, due to which the procession turned into a mob and pelted stones at the security forces.

FIR was registered under Sections 148, 336, 171-C, 171-F RPC and Section 13 UAPA. After investigation and obtaining sanction from the competent authority, the charge sheet was laid before the court. The Trial Court discharged the respondent of offences under Section 13 UAPA and Sections 171-C and 171-F RPC, leading to the present appeal.

Court's Observation:

The High Court examined the legal parameters governing discharge of an accused under Section 227 of the CrPC. The Court observed that at the stage of framing of charge, the Judge is not expected to conduct a mini-trial or weigh the pros and cons of the material on record. The Court relied upon State of Bihar v. Ramesh Singh (1977) 4 SCC 39, wherein the Supreme Court held that the court is only required to consider the broad probabilities of the case and determine whether a prima facie case is made out.

The Court also relied upon Union of India v. Prafulla Kumar Samal (1979) 3 SCC 4, wherein the Supreme Court summarized the principles governing framing of charge, including that the Judge has the power to sift and weigh evidence for the limited purpose of finding out whether a prima facie case against the accused has been made out, and that where the materials disclose grave suspicion against the accused, the Court will be fully justified in framing a charge.

The Court noted that the Trial Court had correctly recorded the legal position but failed to apply it in substance. The Court observed,

"Instead of confining itself to the limited enquiry as to whether the charge-sheet material, taken at face value, discloses the ingredients of Section 13 read with Section 2(o) of the UAPA, the Trial Court has recorded a bare conclusion without testing the specific statements and conduct attributed to the respondent against the statutory definition."

The Court examined Section 2(o) of the UAPA, which defines "unlawful activity" to include any action taken by an individual or association, whether by words spoken or written, or by signs or visible representation, which is intended to bring about the cession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group to bring about such cession, or which questions or disrupts the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India.

The Court observed,

"The material with charge-sheet, including the recorded slogans, the leadership role attributed to respondent, and the resultant violence, at the very least, discloses a strong suspicion sufficient to put the respondent on trial for the offence, leaving the question of whether the ingredients are ultimately proved to be examined at trial and not foreclosed at the threshold."

The Court found that the Trial Court had recorded in a single sentence that the facts "do not fulfil the ingredients of Sections 2(o) of ULA(P) Act" without setting out any reasoning. The Court observed, "This amounts to a bare conclusion rather than a reasoned finding."

The Court held,

"It is trite that an order of discharge must reflect application of judicial mind to the material on record, and that the findings at the charge stage, though summary, cannot be conclusory."

The High Court thus allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and restored the charge sheet. The Trial Court was directed to proceed with the framing of charge against the respondent afresh after considering the material placed on record by the appellant and pass a reasoned order in accordance with law after providing an opportunity of hearing to both sides.

Case Title: UT of J&K v. Mohd Yousuf Lone

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Appearances

Appellant: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG; Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel

Respondent: In person

Click here to read/download Judgment