Jammu & Kashmir HC Dismisses Bail Applications in UAPA Case Involving Explosive Substances [Read Judgment]

Kashmir: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed the bail applications filed by two accused persons in a case involving charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), emphasizing that the gravity of the allegations and the recovery of explosive materials warrant continued custody pending trial.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar delivered the judgment on June 6, 2025, while addressing the appeals filed by Bilal Ahmad Kumar and Tawfeeq Ahmad Laway against the rejection of their bail applications by the Special Judge (UAPA), Anantnag.

The appeals challenged the common order dated November 11, 2024, passed by the Special Judge (UAPA), Anantnag, in FIR No. 20/2021 registered under Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act, Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act, and Sections 18, 20, 23, and 39 of the UAPA at Police Station Bijbehara.

Detailing the incident, the court noted, “On 30.01.2021, Police Station Bijbehara received information that a police escort along with the Army was conducting naka checking at Green Tunnel near Doonipora Sangam. They intercepted an Alto car bearing Registration No. HP12C/0961. Upon questioning, the occupants were found to be active recruits of the banned terrorist organization Jaish-e-Mohammed (JeM).”

The court highlighted the serious nature of the allegations and the recoveries, observing, “From the possession of the appellants, explosive substances, including hand grenades and other materials, were recovered. They have been accused of offences under Sections 18, 23, and 38 of the UAPA and Sections 7/25 of the Arms Act, read with Sections 3/4 of the Explosive Substances Act.”

In evaluating the bail applications, the court remarked, “Offences under Sections 18, 23, and 38 of the UAPA carry punishment that may extend to life imprisonment and fall under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA. In terms of Section 43-D(5), no person accused of an offence punishable under these chapters shall be released on bail if the court is of the opinion that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against such person are prima facie true.”

The Bench referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in National Investigating Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watalli, clarifying that the term “prima facie true” means that the materials presented must indicate the complicity of the accused in the commission of the offence unless rebutted by other evidence.

The court also distinguished the present case from Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, noting that although the appellants had been in custody for over four years, they had not completed five years of undertrial detention, and the case involved actual recovery of explosives and active militant associations.

Concluding the matter, the court stated, “The material available on record indicates the involvement of the appellants in furtherance of terrorist activities backed by members of a terrorist organization. Two of their accomplices were killed in an encounter during the investigation. Hence, mere delay in the trial, particularly in grave offences like the present one, cannot be cited as a ground for grant of bail.”

The court emphasized the balance between individual liberty and national security, stating that the offences relate to activities “intended to instill fear among the general public, thereby compelling them to follow the dictates of organizations whose sole objective is to harm national interests and undermine the sovereignty and integrity of the nation.”

Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocate, appeared for the appellants, while Ms. Maha Majeed, Assisting Counsel vice Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG, appeared for the respondent Union Territory.

Case Title: Bilal Ahmad Kumar vs. Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir

[Read Judgment]