Jammu & Kashmir High Court Orders Fresh Consideration of Bail for Farooq Ahmed Under UAPA

Trial Court's Failure to Apply Section 43-D(5) of UAPA Results in Remand for Reassessment

In a significant legal development, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court has set aside the trial court's order denying bail to Farooq Ahmed, accused under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The Division Bench comprising Justices Sanjeev Kumar and Sanjay Parihar found that the trial court did not adequately consider the statutory provisions under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA, which mandates a detailed reasoning for the denial of bail.

Farooq Ahmed, who has been in custody since August 2021, was charged with offences under several sections of UAPA and the Indian Penal Code, primarily for his alleged association with the Jammu & Kashmir Ghaznavi Force (JKGF), a proscribed terrorist organization. The trial court had earlier declined his bail application, citing insufficient grounds to believe his accusations were prima facie true. However, the High Court noted that the trial court failed to provide a reasoned order after hearing both the prosecution and defense, thus rendering its decision unsustainable.

The prosecution, represented by Senior Additional Advocate General Mrs. Monika Kohli, argued that Ahmed was involved in serious anti-national activities and linked with other accused in funding terrorist operations. Despite these assertions, the High Court emphasized the necessity for the trial court to properly assess whether the accusations had reasonable grounds under the legal framework of UAPA.

Referring to previous judgments, including the Supreme Court's decision in National Investigation Agency v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, the High Court reiterated that the degree of satisfaction required to deny bail under UAPA is lighter than that for framing charges. It highlighted that the expression "reasonable grounds" means more than mere prima facie grounds, necessitating a substantial probable cause for denying bail.

Consequently, the High Court remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to reassess the bail application, ensuring compliance with the statutory mandates. The trial court is scheduled to hear the case afresh and is expected to render a decision by November 17, 2025.

Bottom Line:

Bail under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Court to determine whether accusations against the accused are prima facie true under Section 43-D(5) of UAPA - Trial court must provide a reasoned order after hearing both prosecution and defense, and failure to do so renders its decision unsustainable.

Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Section 43-D(5), Indian Penal Code Sections 17, 18, 20, 40, 120-B, 121, 122, 123, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Farooq Ahmed v. Union Territory of J&K, (Jammu And Kashmir)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2796564