The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the charges under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the eight accused in the 2022 murder case of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal, holding that at the stage of framing of charges the Court was not required to conduct a mini-trial but to satisfy itself whether the prosecution material disclosed a prima facie case.

The division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain further observed that the accused's contentions pertain to evaluation of evidence which can only be adjudicated during trial. Interfering at this stage would be an “unwarranted pre-emption” of the prosecution proceedings, it added.

"Upon consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the material available on record, this Court finds no compelling ground warranting interference with the impugned orders framing charges against the appellants. At this stage, the Court is required to ascertain whether the prosecution material gives rise to a prima facie case or grave suspicion against the accused, and not to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence with a view to determining their ultimate guilt or innocence," the bench said.

On the objections made to recovered videos and the absence of specific expressions affecting public tranquillity and the alleged non-membership of the appellants in any unlawful organisation are concerned, the court said that the same cannot be accepted as "conclusive grounds for discharge" in the absence of a comprehensive examination of the prosecution material.

The court said that the allegations of conspiracy and the circumstances surrounding the incident are required to be appreciated in its entirety.

"The absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, by itself, cannot be decisive, as such an agreement may be inferred from the cumulative effect of the circumstances, as recognised in State of Maharashtra v. Som Nath Thapa , Firozudden Basheeruddin and ors. v. State of Kerela and Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab...
The contentions raised by the appellants essentially pertain to the appreciation and evaluation of evidence, which are matters to be adjudicated upon during trial. Interference at this stage would amount to an unwarranted pre-emption of the prosecution proceedings," the court said.

The Court was hearing two appeals challenging the order passed by the trial court in the matters, wherein charges were framed against the accused under IPC, UAPA and Arms Act, 1959, on the ground that framing of charges under the UAPA was a manifest error and misapplication of mind.

The prosecution argued that as per the FIR and the material collected during the course of investigation, the accused-appellants allegedly conspired to commit the murder of deceased Kanhaiya Lal, purportedly on account of certain remarks made by Nupur Sharma against Pegambar Mohammed Sahab during a television show.

It was alleged that the deceased had shared and forwarded the said remarks through social media, which allegedly provoked the accused-appellants and led them to commit the aforesaid crime. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the accused-appellants, being aggrieved by the social media activity of the deceased, allegedly acted in furtherance of their common intention and committed his murder. The prosecution further alleged that the incident was preceded by threats and was connected with the sharing and forwarding of the aforesaid social media message. It is also alleged that the act was intended to hurt religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony.

The counsel for the accused persons argued that the videos that the recovered videos did not have any words or expression which could be seen as having the tendency of disturbing public tranquillity. There was no specific averment in the FIR to the effect that the threat was directed against any particular person, community, caste or religion.

Further, the counsel submitted that there was no material on record to indicate that the accused persons were associated with any unlawful organization or that the alleged acts were committed in furtherance of any activities of such organisation.

On the contrary, it was argued by the State that the offence of criminal conspiracy under Section 18, UAPA, was of wide amplitude and included not only the actual commission of a terrorist act, but also the conspiracy, attempt, abetment, and the preparatory acts to the commission of the alleged act. The circumstances preceding the alleged incident was significant in determining the existence of a conspiracy.

It was further submitted that the nature and import of alleged statement could not be determined solely based existence or omission of particular words. The contents of the recovered videos, the circumstances in which they were recorded and their alleged connection with the incident were matters requiring proper examination and appreciation of evidence during trial.

It was also highlighted that since the question whether the material established the ingredients of the offences under UAPA, had to be adjudicated after the evidence was led, it could not be done at the present stage.

The appeals were dismissed.