Court finds prima facie evidence against Adan Bashir Bangroo and Mohd. Manan Dar in terror-related activities, dismisses appeals.
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed appeals by Adan Bashir Bangroo and Mohd. Manan Dar, challenging the framing of charges against them under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). The division bench, comprising Justices Rajnesh Oswal and Sanjay Parihar, upheld the trial court's order, asserting that a prima facie case exists against the appellants.
The appellants were accused of conspiring with a banned terrorist outfit, possessing incriminating materials, and maintaining connections with a Pakistan-based handler. The trial court had framed charges under various sections of the UAPA, including Sections 13, 18, 39, and 40(2), as well as Section 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The High Court emphasized that at the stage of framing charges, the court must form a prima facie opinion based on the materials presented, without delving into a detailed evaluation of evidence, which is reserved for trial proceedings. The court noted that the evidence, including the possession of posters and cash, supported the allegations of the appellants' involvement in a conspiracy to promote terrorist activities in the region.
The appellants contended that the charges were based on their alleged confessions before an Executive Magistrate, which they argued was impermissible in law without corroborative evidence. However, the court found sufficient material on record, including digital evidence and financial investigations, supporting the prosecution's case.
The court also dismissed the contention raised by Mohd. Manan Dar regarding his alleged false implication, noting that such issues need to be substantiated during the trial. The judgment emphasized that the trial court's order is not to be influenced by the observations made during this appeal's dismissal.
This decision underscores the court's stance on handling cases under the UAPA, where charges can be framed based on grave suspicion, and emphasizes the need for a full trial to examine the evidence comprehensively.
Bottom line:-
Framing of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 - Court must form a prima facie opinion based on the material placed on record without engaging in a detailed evaluation of evidence, which is reserved for trial proceedings.
Statutory provision(s): Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 Sections 13, 18, 39, 40(2); Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 Sections 227, 228; Indian Penal Code Section 506.
