J&K: High Court Upholds UAPA Charges Against Alleged TRF ‘Associates’
Court finds prima facie evidence sufficient for trial and dismisses appeals against framed charges
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld UAPA charges against two Srinagar residents accused of acting as “associates” of The Resistance Front (TRF)—a group the authorities and international assessments describe as a proxy of Lashkar‑e‑Taiba (LeT), a designated terrorist organization.
The Division Bench of Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Parihar dismissed the criminal appeals of Adnan Bashir Bangroo and Mohammad Manan Dar, holding that the prosecution had produced sufficient prima facie material to justify a full trial.
The judgment, reserved on June 4, 2026 and earlier this month, affirmed the Special NIA Court’s July 12, 2025 order framing charges under multiple UAPA provisions. Bangroo faces charges under Sections 13, 18 and 39 of the Act along with Section 506 IPC, while Dar faces Sections 13, 18, 39 and 40(2) UAPA in addition to Section 506 IPC.
The appellants argued that the more serious charges—conspiracy, support to a terrorist organisation and, in Dar’s case, raising funds—rested primarily on alleged confessional statements before an Executive Magistrate without corroboration. They claimed no recoveries were made pursuant to those disclosures, rendering them inadmissible. Dar additionally alleged illegal detention prior to his formal arrest, relying on a habeas corpus petition filed in March 2024.
Representing the Union Territory, Senior AAG Mohsin Qadiri countered that the prosecution’s case extended well beyond the confessional statements. FIR No. 11/2024 had been registered after TRF allegedly circulated a threatening message on the Telegram channel “Kashmir Fight(s)” targeting Booth Level Officers involved in parliamentary election duties. The next day, police intercepted the appellants at Jehangir Chowk, allegedly recovering 39 TRF posters, adhesive material and ₹ 1 lakh in cash concealed under Dar’s clothing.
Investigators claimed both accused admitted contact with a Pakistan‑based handler who instructed them to collect posters, glue and cash from Srinagar’s Qamarwari area on March 14, 2024. Technical evidence allegedly placed their mobile phones at that location at the relevant time. Forensic examination of Dar’s phone reportedly recovered a photograph of slain TRF militant Momin Gulzar not available on public platforms, along with records of communication with virtual numbers attributed to Pakistan‑based handlers. Investigators also noted that the two accused exchanged over 100 WhatsApp calls but no conventional voice calls, and that Dar had no legitimate income explaining the ₹ 1 lakh recovered.
The Bench held that at the stage of framing charges, courts are required only to determine whether a prima facie case exists, not to conduct a detailed evaluation of evidence. Citing Supreme Court precedents such as Golconda Linga Swamy, Sajjan Kumar and Debendra Nath Padhi, the judges reiterated that defence material cannot be considered at this preliminary stage.
Rejecting the appellants’ challenge, the court found that the prosecution’s case included multiple strands of corroborative material--alleged contact with a Pakistan‑based handler, recovery of propaganda posters and cash, digital evidence linking the accused to TRF‑related communication channels, forensic material connecting Dar to Gulzar, and financial inconsistencies. These, the Bench held, were sufficient to sustain charges of conspiracy under Section 18, support to a terrorist organisation under Section 39, and raising funds under Section 40(2).
The court also dismissed Dar’s reliance on the habeas corpus petition, holding that allegations in pleadings do not constitute evidence of “sterling quality” capable of negating prosecution material at the stage of framing charges.
Concluding that the trial court committed no legal error, the High Court dismissed both appeals and clarified that its observations are tentative, meant only for assessing the legality of the charges. The trial court has been directed to evaluate evidence independently during trial.
