Observing that the power of further investigation is intended to unearth new facts and ensure a fair investigation, the Court directed the Special Court to reconsider its decision to frame charges under Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) against the accused in the 2019 Srinagar Central Jail riot case.

The Court further emphasised that a criminal court considering the question of framing charges cannot function as a "post office" or "mouthpiece" of the prosecution, but must independently examine whether the material placed on record prima facie discloses the essential ingredients of the offences sought to be invoked.

A Division Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd. Yousuf Wani passed the order while deciding petitions filed by several accused challenging an order of the Special NIA Court, Srinagar, directing framing of charges under Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA in connection with FIR registered at Police Station Rainawari.

The FIR arose from a violent incident inside Central Jail, Srinagar, on 4 April 2019, where jail inmates allegedly set prison barracks ablaze, raised anti-national slogans, pelted stones at jail officials and security personnel, damaged public property and attempted to escape from the prison. According to the prosecution, several officials sustained injuries while substantial damage was caused to jail infrastructure.

Following investigation, the police initially filed a charge-sheet invoking provisions of the Ranbir Penal Code along with Section 13 of the UAPA. A first supplementary charge-sheet followed against additional accused.

Subsequently, during further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC, the Special Investigation Team (SIT) filed a second supplementary charge-sheet adding Sections 16 and 18 of the UAPA, alleging that the accused had formed a terrorist gang within the jail, used LPG cylinders and other hazardous substances to create explosions, facilitate a jailbreak and spread terror among nearby residents.

The Special Court thereafter recorded its prima facie satisfaction and directed framing of charges under the additional UAPA provisions, which was challenged before the High Court.

Court's Observations:

The Division Bench carefully examined the investigation record and found that the second supplementary charge-sheet did not appear to be supported by any fresh documentary or material evidence recovered during further investigation.

The Court noted that the details of articles and documents relied upon in the second supplementary charge-sheet remained substantially the same as those relied upon in the earlier charge-sheets. Significantly, the Bench observed,

"We have not been able to lay our hands on any statement of witness recorded under Section 161 or 164 of the Code by the SIT subsequent to the filing of the first supplementary charge sheet."

Relying upon the Supreme Court's decision in Mariam Fasihuddin v. State by Adugodi Police Station (2024), the Court reiterated that the statutory power of further investigation exists to discover fresh oral or documentary evidence and cannot be exercised merely by re-evaluating material already considered while filing the original police report. Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench observed,

"The provision for submitting a supplementary report infers that fresh oral or documentary evidence should be obtained rather than re-evaluating or reassessing the material already collected and considered by the investigating agency while submitting the initial police report."

The Court further observed that although Section 173(8) CrPC confers a wide power upon the investigating agency to conduct further investigation, such power is intended to ensure a fair investigation and cannot be used as a device to introduce more serious offences on the basis of the very same material.

Justice Wani, speaking for the Bench, observed,

"A supplementary report/charge sheet on the basis of further investigation is justified only when there is discovery of some new evidence—direct or documentary."

The Court added,

"Re-evaluation or Re-assessment of the already recorded evidence backing the initial report(s)/charge sheet(s) for the purpose of justifying the presentation of a further report/charge sheet under some new offences is not permissible under law."

Court On Framing Of Charges:

Reiterating the settled principles governing framing of charges, the High Court observed that the exercise is not a mere procedural formality. The Bench held,

"A criminal court is not supposed to act as a post office or a mouthpiece of the prosecution. The order regarding consideration of framing of charges is an important and sensitive step in a criminal trial and, as such, should never be considered as a formality."

The Court explained that although, at the stage of framing charges, the court is required to proceed on the prosecution material, it must nevertheless sift and weigh the evidence for the limited purpose of determining whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie made out.

Whether UAPA Charges Are Prima Facie Made Out

The Bench also examined the petitioners' contention that the allegations, even if accepted, did not necessarily constitute a terrorist act within the meaning of Section 15 of the UAPA.

Relying upon the Supreme Court's landmark judgment in Hitendra Vishnu Thakur v. State of Maharashtra, the Court reiterated that every grave criminal offence resulting in fear or panic does not automatically become a terrorist act.

The Court reproduced the Supreme Court's observation that an offence under anti-terror legislation requires the requisite intention contemplated by the statute and cannot be attracted merely because terror or panic is an incidental consequence of criminal conduct.

The Bench clarified that it was not expressing any final opinion on the applicability of Sections 16 and 18 UAPA but held that the trial court must independently evaluate whether the material on record satisfies the statutory ingredients of those offences before directing the accused to face trial under the anti-terror law.

Holding that the legal principles governing further investigation and framing of charges required fresh consideration, the High Court directed the Special Court to revisit its earlier order and pass a fresh, reasoned decision after hearing both sides.

The Court directed,

"...the learned trial court [shall] revisit the impugned order dated 08.11.2025, in accordance with the law, while keeping in mind the observations made by this Court and pass a fresh reasoned order regarding the framing of charge against/discharge of the petitioners under the relevant sections of law."

Case: Arif Ahmad Sheikh & Ors. v. Union Territory of J&K & Anr.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 326

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment