Sloganeering For Secession With Head Of Hurriyat Conference Followed By Violence Against Security Forces Falls Within UAPA: Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh HC

The High Court was considering an appeal directed against the order/judgement by which the respondent was discharged from the commission of offences punishable under Section 171-C, 171-F RPC and Section 13 of the ULA(P) Act.

The Bench comprising Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Mohd Yousuf Wani held, “Section 2(o) of UAPA defines “unlawful activity” to include, inter alia, any action taken by an individual or association, whether by committing an act or by words, either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation or otherwise, which is intended, or supports any claim, to bring about the cession of a part of the territory of India from the Union, or which incites any individual or group to bring about such cession, or which questions, disrupts or is intended to disrupt the sovereignty and territorial integrity of India. The sloganeering for secession, raised by an accused leading a mob in the company of the head of a proscribed separatist organisation, and coupled with incitement of the public and violence against security forces, is capable, on a prima facie appreciation, of falling squarely within this definition.”

Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri represented the Appellant while Advocate Arshid Andrabi represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The case dates back to the year 2013 when a docket was received by police station Kupwara from incharge police patrolling party deputed at Bazar Kupwara, in which it was reported that while patrolling, the police party noticed that a procession was taken out by the separatist Hurriyat front-runner Syed Ali Shah Geelani along with Mohd Yousuf Lone – respondent. It was mentioned therein that the participants in the procession were raising slogans against the integrity of India and were inciting the public to challenge India’s territorial sovereignty, due to which the procession turned into a mob and pelted stones at the security forces.

An FIR was registered and the investigation was set into motion. Upon completion of the investigation and after obtaining sanction from the competent authority, the charge sheet was laid before the court of competent jurisdiction. However, vide the impugned order, the accused respondent was discharged of the offences punishable under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Sections 171-C and 171 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). Aggrieved thereby, the appellant approached the High Court.

Reasoning

Referring to Sections 227 and 228 of the CrPC, the Bench explained that at the beginning and at the initial stage of trial, the truth, veracity and effect of evidence which the prosecution proposes to adduce are not to be meticulously judged, nor is any weight to be attached to the probable defence of the accused.

“The Court, at that stage, is not to see whether there is sufficient ground for conviction of the accused or whether the trial is sure to end in his conviction. Strong suspicion against the accused, if the matter remains in the region of suspicion, cannot take the place of proof of his guilt at the conclusion of the trial. But at the initial stage if there is a strong suspicion which leads the Court to think that there is ground for presuming that the accused has committed an offence then it is not open to the Court to say that there is no sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused”, it added.

The Bench further reiterated that at the stage of framing of charge the court is not required to hold a mini-trial or to weigh the evidence as if adjudicating the guilt. The test is whether, on the material placed on record, a strong suspicion arises that the accused has committed the offence alleged.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found that instead of confining itself to the limited enquiry as to whether the charge-sheet material, taken at face value, disclosed the ingredients of Section 13 of UAPA read with Section 2(o) thereof, the Trial Court proceeded to conclusively hold that the ingredients of unlawful activity were not made out. As per the Bench, this was a finding more appropriate to the trial stage than to the stage of charge.

The Bench reiterated that an order of discharge must reflect application of judicial mind to the material on record, and that the findings at the charge stage, though summary, cannot be conclusory. On a perusal of the order impugned, the Bench noted that the same did not indicate that the specific contents of the charge-sheet, the statements of the witnesses to the procession, the site plan, and the material, alleged to link the respondent to the incitement and the resultant violence, were tested against the ingredients of Section 13 read with Section 2(o) of the UAPA before the conclusion of non-applicability was recorded. “On this ground the order impugned is unsustainable and calls for interference”, it added.

“The Trial Court has recorded, in a single sentence in paragraph 06 of the order impugned, that the facts “do not fulfil the ingredients of Sections 2(o) of ULA(P) Act” without setting out the reasoning by which the specific statements/conduct attributed to the respondent in the chargesheet were tested against the statutory definition. This amounts to a bare conclusion rather than a reasoned finding. The material with chargesheet, including the recorded slogans, the leadership role attributed to respondent, and the resultant violence, at the very least, discloses a strong suspicion sufficient to put the respondent on trial for the offence, leaving the question of whether the ingredients are ultimately proved to be examined at trial and not foreclosed at the threshold”, it explained.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench ordered the restoration of the charge-sheet along with a direction to the Trial Court to proceed with the framing of charge against the respondent afresh and pass a reasoned order.

Cause Title: UT of J&K through Station House Officer v. Mohd Yousuf Lone (Case No.: CrlA(D) no. 43 of 2025)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, Assisting Counsel Maha Majeed

Respondent: Advocates Arshid Andrabi, Bariqah Shahrie

Click here to read/download Order