Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat Aged 38 Years S/O Gh. … vs Union Territory Of J&K Through Police … on 20 May, 2026
Author: Rajnesh Oswal
Bench: Rajnesh Oswal
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
...
CrlA(D) no.06/2026
CrlM no.114/2026
Reserved on: 13.05.2026
Pronounced on: 20.05.2026
Uploaded on: 20.05.2026
Whether the operative part or
full judgment is pronounced: Full
1. Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat aged 38 years S/o Gh. Qadir Bhat R/o Chandsooma
Kanispora Baramulla
2. Saleem Yousuf Makai aged 37 years S/o Mohd Yousuf Makai R/o Jalal
Sahib, Baramulla
.......Appellants(s)
Through: Mr Salih Pirzada, Advocate
Mr Ahmad Basaud, Advocate
Versus
Union Territory of J&K through police station Baramulla
......Respondent(s)
Through: Mr Mohsin Qadiri, Sr.AAG with
Ms Maha Majeed, assisting counsel
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE
JUDGEMENT
1. By way of this appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008, the appellants challenge the validity of the order
dated 31st January 2026, passed by the Court of Special Judge
designated under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Baramulla
at Sopore (hereinafter ‘Special Court’). Vide the impugned order, the
Special Court rejected the appellants’ application for grant of bail in FIR
Page 1
CrlA(D) no.06/2026
No. 208/2025 under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention)
Act (hereinafter ‘the Act’).
2. Appellants have assailed order impugned on the following grounds:
a) That learned Special Court erred in invoking the statutory bar under
Section 43-D (5) of the Act to deny bail to the appellants. The said
section is entirely inapplicable to an offence under Section 13 of the
Act, which is the subject matter of the instant case.
b) That the appellants were not provided with the written grounds of
arrest as mandated by law. This deliberate omission on the part of
the respondent violates the appellants’ fundamental rights and
renders the entire arrest illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction.
c) That there is no material on record against the appellants to sustain
the allegation of an offence under Section 13 of the Act. The case of
the respondent rests entirely on speculation, conjectures, and
surmises regarding a possible commission of the offence.
3. Respondent has filed its latest status report dated 28th April 2026. Apart
from narrating the factual matrix, which we shall refer to later, the
report states that the investigation is actively underway. It highlights
that the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) opinion has been received
regarding a Hard Disk Drive (HDD) containing a vast volume of
extracted data from the seized electronic devices, which is currently
undergoing thorough examination. Respondent asserts that a strong
prima facie case exists against the appellants. It is submitted that the
case diary contains substantial incriminating material, including
witness statements, electronic evidence, and forensic reports,
establishing the appellants’ involvement. Consequently, it is contended
Page 2
CrlA(D) no.06/2026
that the learned Special Court rightly rejected the appellants’ bail
application vide impugned order dated 31st January 2026.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants were
arrested on 25th November 2025 and are currently in judicial custody.
He further contended that the sole allegation against the appellants
pertains to the possession of certain literature, which the respondents
allege is prejudicial to the security and sovereignty of the State and was
intended to promote a secessionist agenda. He asserted that there is an
absolute lack of concrete or incriminating evidence on record to
substantiate these claims against the appellants. It is further submitted
that the learned Special Court erred in applying Section 43-D(5) of the
Act to reject the bail application, notwithstanding that the said provision
has no applicability to an offence under Section 13 of the Act. He has
relied heavily upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
“Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, (2022) 14 SCC 766″.
5. Per contra, Mr. Qadri, learned Sr.AAG, for the respondent submitted
that the investigation is actively ongoing. He clarified that the learned
Special Court did not reject the bail application based on the statutory
bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Act, but rather on the ground that the
investigation was at its infancy. He further contended that substantial
progress has since been made in the investigation. Addressing the
appellants’ claim that they were merely in possession of unbanned
literature, the respondent submitted that this assertion is belied by the
evidence collected so far. The material on record demonstrates that the
appellants were actively instrumental in propagating hatred and
disaffection against India and there is possibility that offence under
Page 3
CrlA(D) no.06/2026
section 18 of the Act is added. Therefore, given the ongoing nature of
the investigation, the appellants are not entitled to bail.
6. Heard and perused the record including case diary, which after perusal
was returned to IO.
7. The record reveals that on 24th October 2025, police station Baramulla
received an information through credible and reliable source that a
society operating under the name of Idar-e-Falah-u-Darien, Baramulla,
is involved in unlawful activities by installing donation boxes at various
locations for collection of funds and there is strong suspicion that
collected funds are being diverted to promote secessionist ideology. It
has further surfaced that managing body of the said society has
affiliation with banned orgranisations, like, Jamaate-Islami-e-Jammu
and Kashmir, and Tehreek-e-Hurriyat Kashmir, which are linked with
unlawful and separatist activities for diversion of funds towards
unlawful and terror related activities. On receipt of this information, an
FIR No.208/2025 was registered at P/S Baramulla under Section 13 of
the Act. It came to light that the society is presided over by Imtiyaz
Qadir Bhat (appellant no.1) and assisted by its Secretary, namely,
Saleem Yousuf Makai (appellant no.2) and others. Notice under
Section 179 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) was issued
to them for their presence at police station. The President along with
Secretary produced the documents, which were seized in the instant
case and donation boxes installed at various shops in Baramulla Town
were also seized and separate seizure memos were prepared. I.O.
constituted different teams to raid residential premises of IDF as well
as office of Centre for Research and Policy Studies (CRPS). During
Page 4
CrlA(D) no.06/2026
raid at residence of appellant no.1, seven books, two mobile phones and
a laptop were seized. Likewise, during raid conducted at the residence
of respondent no.2, books and mobile phone were recovered and seized.
Separate raid was conducted at the office of CRPS where research
related files were seized and seizure memo was prepared. A raid was
also conducted at the residence of Shabir Ahmad Gojree (office boy)
wherefrom one CPU type Frontech colour black was seized and seizure
memo was prepared. Another search was conducted at the residence of
Ghulam Rasool Pandit, which led to recovery and seizure of Rs.3.50
Lakhs as unaccounted cash. On the perusal of the documents from the
residence of appellants, the documents appeared to contain the material
suspected to be used for unlawful propagation and indoctrination
activities, prejudicial to security and sovereignty of Union Territory.
8. Respondent has stated that there are serious allegations against
appellants and it is not that they were found to be in possession of books
only but also were instrumental in propagating secessionist ideology
and promoting hatred against India.
9. The first ground of challenge to the impugned order is that the learned
Special Court erroneously applied the statutory bar under Section 43-
D(5) of the Act to reject the bail application. Perusal of the order
impugned reveals that learned Special Court in para 34 has mentioned
“On overall consideration of the matter, the Court is satisfied that there
exists reasonable grounds for believing that the accusations against the
applicants are prima facie made out”, but that is not the solitary ground
leading to rejection of bail application. In fact, the learned Special Court
was guided primarily by the nascent stage of the investigation in
Page 5
CrlA(D) no.06/2026
rejecting the bail application preferred by the appellants. The learned
Special Court explicitly observed that the FSL report regarding the data
extracted from the seized mobile phones and other electronic devices
was still awaited. Consequently, we are not convinced that the learned
Special Court rejected the application solely on the basis of the
provisions contained in Section 43-D(5) of the Act. This contention,
therefore, stands rejected.
10.Secondly, it was contended that the grounds of arrest were not provided
to the appellants. We have perused the application filed by the
appellants before the learned Special Court and find that no such ground
was ever raised therein. Conversely, the respondent in its status report
has categorically stated that the appellants were arrested on 25 th
November 2025, whereupon arrest memos and separate intimation
memos were prepared on the spot, and the grounds of arrest were duly
conveyed. Given that this factual assertion is disputed by the
respondents, and noting that the learned Special Court had no occasion
to examine the issue in the absence of any pleadings to that effect, we
refrain from returning any finding on this aspect at this stage. We leave
this issue open to be raised before the learned Special Court.
Consequently, this contention also stands rejected.
11.The final contention raised by the appellants is that the mere possession
of unbanned books cannot attract an offence under Section 13 of the
Act. The learned Sr. AAG strongly countered this submission, asserting
that the case diary and witness statements contain ample material
showing the appellants’ active involvement in propagating secessionist
ideology and inciting disaffection against the Union of India. As this
Page 6
CrlA(D) no.06/2026
submission relates strictly to the merits of the prosecution’s case, we
deem it inappropriate to return any finding on this aspect at this
juncture, leaving it to be adjudicated by the Special Court at an
appropriate stage.
12.The investigation is actively ongoing, and the Investigating Officer (IO)
is required to file the chargesheet within the statutorily prescribed
period, with only a few days remaining for its submission. Once the
chargesheet is filed, the appellants shall be at liberty to file a fresh
application for bail. At that stage, the learned Special Court will be in a
better position to adjudicate upon the contentions of the appellants in
light of the material compiled in the chargesheet. The judgement
heavily relied upon by learned counsel for appellants, in the case of
Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India (supra), is not applicable in the instant
case as the chargesheet had been filed in the said case and after
examining the allegations levelled in the charge sheet, the bail was
granted to the accused therein.
13.After careful perusal of the impugned order, we find no ground to
warrant our interference. The order passed by the learned Special Court
is legally sound and within its jurisdiction. Consequently, this appeal
stands disposed of, with liberty to the appellants to move a fresh
application for bail before the learned Special Court after the
chargesheet is submitted.
(Rajnesh Oswal) (Arun Palli)
Judge Chief Justice
Srinagar
20.05.2026
Ajaz Ahmad, Secy
Whether approved for reporting? No
Page 7
CrlA(D) no.06/2026
