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

**J&K&L High Court Upholds Bail Denial in UAPA Case, Citing "Nascent Stage" of Probe Into Alleged Secessionist Funding**

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has reinforced the stringent evidentiary thresholds under anti-terror laws by refusing bail to two office-bearers of a Baramulla-based society accused of funneling donations to banned separatist groups. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal affirmed the Special Court’s rejection of bail, emphasizing the investigative imperative to uncover a "larger conspiracy" under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The decision underscores the judiciary’s cautious approach in UAPA cases, where the statutory bar under Section 43-D(5) often tilts the scales against pretrial release.

At the heart of the case lies the alleged operation of *Idar-e-Falah-u-Darien*, a society whose donation boxes—placed across Baramulla shops—reportedly funded groups like the banned *Jamaat-e-Islami Jammu and Kashmir* and *Tehreek-e-Hurriyat*. Financial trails and seized materials, including Rs. 3.5 lakh in unaccounted cash and electronic devices containing “propaganda literature,” formed the basis of the FIR under UAPA Section 13 (punishing unlawful activities). The accused, including society president Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat and secretary Saleem Yousuf Makai, argued that mere possession of unbanned books or donation collection couldn’t sustain such charges. The Court, however, deferred to the prosecution’s assertion that witness statements and forensic analysis of seized hard drives revealed active efforts to incite disaffection against India.

**Legal Precedents and the UAPA’s Bail Hurdles** The ruling aligns with the Supreme Court’s *National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali* (2019) doctrine, which held that UAPA bail hinges on whether accusations are *prima facie* true—a low threshold favoring the state. Here, the High Court noted the Special Court’s reliance on this standard, compounded by the “nascent stage” of the probe. Unlike regular offenses, UAPA’s Section 43-D(5) effectively reverses the presumption of liberty, requiring courts to deny bail if charges appear credible, even before trial. This contrasts sharply with *Arnab Goswami v. State of Maharashtra* (2020), where the Supreme Court stressed bail as the rule for non-UAPA cases.

The accused’s contention—that Section 13 offenses fall outside Section 43-D(5)’s bail restrictions—was swiftly dismissed. The Bench observed that the provision applies to “every offense” under UAPA’s Chapters IV and VI, per *Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb* (2021). This interpretation narrows exit routes for defendants, as charges under Section 13 (often a precursor to graver accusations like terrorism financing) trigger the same procedural rigor as Sections 16–18.

**Due Process and Arrest Grounds: An Open Question** A procedural wrinkle emerged when the appellants claimed non-receipt of written arrest grounds, a safeguard under *Article 22(1)* of the Constitution and Section 179 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court sidestepped this issue, noting the appellants’ failure to raise it earlier. While the prosecution insisted memos were served, the Bench left the door ajar for future adjudication, signaling that such challenges must be timely pleaded. This mirrors the Delhi High Court’s stance in *Devangana Kalita v. State* (2021), where delayed due process claims were deemed waivable.

**Strategic Implications for Defense Counsel** For practitioners, the judgment is a stark reminder of UAPA’s procedural minefields. First, bail petitions must preemptively address Section 43-D(5) by dismantling the prosecution’s *prima facie* case—a task requiring granular rebuttals of seized evidence and financial linkages. Second, procedural defenses (like non-compliance with arrest memos) must be flagged at the earliest opportunity, lest they be forfeited. Third, the Court’s deference to “ongoing investigation” timelines suggests that post-charge sheet bail applications may face marginally lower hurdles, as seen in *Asif Iqbal Tanha v. State* (2021).

**Broader Societal and Business Ramifications** Beyond courtroom strategy, the verdict casts a shadow over civil society operations in sensitive regions. Entities collecting donations—even for ostensibly charitable ends—must now implement robust transparency measures to avoid entanglement in UAPA’s wide net. The seizure of research files from the *Centre for Research and Policy Studies* further signals scrutiny of academic work intersecting with separatist narratives. Businesses hosting donation boxes or partnering with NGOs would be prudent to conduct enhanced due diligence, given the precedent of guilt by association in such cases.

The High Court’s refusal to intervene—despite the accused’s claims of procedural lapses—also highlights the judiciary’s institutional caution in security-related matters. While this preserves investigative latitude, it risks normalizing prolonged pretrial detention, a concern flagged by the Supreme Court in *Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India* (2021). For now, the message is clear: in UAPA cases, the scales of justice tilt decisively toward the state’s security imperatives, leaving defendants to await trial or pin hopes on post-charge sheet bail.

*Case Title: Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat & Anr. v. Union Territory of J&K* *Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL)*