J&K High Court Upholds UAPA Charges Against Two Accused Linked to TRF Poster-and-Cash Operation Targeting Election Officials

A Division Bench at Srinagar dismissed appeals against charge framing under the UAPA, holding that forensic data, recovered posters, and unaccounted cash provided sufficient prima facie material to sustain charges under Sections 13, 18, 39, and 40(2) of the Act.

The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed two criminal appeals that challenged the framing of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 against two men arrested during a vehicle check in March 2024. The appellants — Adnan Bashir Bangroo and Mohd. Manan Dar — were found carrying propaganda posters and ₹1,00,000 in cash allegedly connected to the banned outfit The Resistance Front (TRF). Justice Rajnesh Oswal, writing for a Division Bench also comprising Justice Sanjay Parihar, held that the trial court had not erred in framing charges. Physical recoveries combined with forensic mobile data, IPDR location records, and the presence of a deceased terrorist's photograph on one appellant's phone collectively established the requisite prima facie case. The bench was clear that disputed questions of fact could not be evaluated at the charge-framing stage.

The Arrests and the Prosecution Case

On 18 March 2024, Police Station Shaheed Gunj, Srinagar received a tip that TRF had posted a threat message on a social media group called “Fight Kashmir” targeting Booth Level Officials ahead of the Parliamentary Elections. The post named officials and stated: “We are watching. It is but a small list that has been uploaded. We have got all the input/info.” FIR No. 11/2024 was registered under Section 506 IPC and Section 13 of the UAPA.

The following day, 19 March 2024, a routine vehicle-checking naka was operating at Jehangir Chowk. A motorcycle bearing registration No. JK01AE-5442, ridden by both appellants, was stopped. Mohd. Manan Dar was found with 14 TRF posters hidden under his shirt and ₹1,00,000 in ₹500 notes. Adnan Bashir Bangroo was found with 25 posters bearing a message from the Telegram channel “Kashmir Fights” and a bottle of glue, also concealed under his shirt. Both were arrested on the spot in the presence of two independent witnesses.

Income certificates obtained from the EMIC South showed Manan Dar's monthly income at ₹12,000 and Bangroo's at ₹15,000 — figures that could not account for possession of ₹1,00,000 in cash. Financial investigation confirmed that neither appellant had made any corresponding bank withdrawal.

What the Interrogation and Forensics Revealed

On 25 March 2024, Mohd. Manan Dar made a statement before an Executive Magistrate. He described receiving instructions from a Pakistan-based handler operating through virtual numbers. On 14 March 2024, both appellants had gone to Qamarwari, Srinagar, where an unidentified person handed them a polythene bag containing posters, ₹1,00,000, and glue. The cash was meant to be delivered to an active TRF terrorist, Momin Gulzar, near Ahl-e-Hadis Masjid, Gowkadal. Bangroo made a substantially similar statement before the Executive Magistrate, acknowledging contact with the Pakistan-based handler and the plan to paste posters to dissuade voters.

IPDR and GPRS data from the mobile numbers used by both appellants confirmed they were present simultaneously at Qamarwari between 12:30 and 13:00 hours on 14 March 2024, corroborating their own statements. The mobile phones were seized and sent to FSL Srinagar. The FSL retrieved a photograph of Momin Gulzar — a TRF terrorist later killed in an encounter — from Manan Dar's phone. Metadata showed the photograph was taken by Manan Dar on 16 March 2024. The FSL confirmed the photograph was not available anywhere on the open internet or any social media platform, ruling out the possibility that it was downloaded from a public domain.

Further, FSL extraction from Manan Dar's phone showed he was in contact with multiple virtual numbers — 017017141151, 15304879776, 15306600849, 17147073350, 128520684, and 19318882415 — consistent with the handler's method of using rotating virtual numbers. Forensic analysis of Bangroo's phone showed over 100 WhatsApp calls exchanged between the two, with a complete absence of conventional cellular calls, indicating they communicated exclusively through internet-based platforms. Investigation by the Cyber Police Station, Srinagar established that the Telegram channel https://t.me/kfpublic was registered through virtual number 19419091984, and the poster content recovered on 19 March 2024 had been published on that channel on 14 March 2024.

The Investigating Officer re-seized the ₹1,00,000 under Section 25(5) of the UAPA on 25 March 2024. A confirmation order from the Divisional Commissioner, Kashmir followed on 25 June 2024. Momin Gulzar was named Accused No. 1 in the charge sheet; proceedings against him abated upon his death.

The Charges Framed and the Challenge Before the High Court

The Additional Sessions Judge (Designated Special Court under the NIA Act), Srinagar framed charges against both appellants by order dated 12 July 2025. Bangroo faced charges under Sections 13, 18, and 39 of the UAPA and Section 506 IPC. Manan Dar faced the same, with the additional charge under Section 40(2) of the UAPA, which relates to raising funds for a terrorist organisation.

Both appellants filed criminal appeals — CrlA(D) No. 64/2025 and CrlA(D) No. 70/2025 — before the Division Bench. The appeals were reserved on 4 June 2026 and pronounced on 3 July 2026.

The appellants' core argument was that the trial court had relied solely on confessional statements made before an Executive Magistrate to frame charges. They contended such statements were impermissible as the sole basis, particularly in the absence of corroborating recoveries. Bangroo's counsel, Mr. Shariq Jan Reyaz, narrowed the challenge to the charges under Sections 18 and 39, arguing that the disclosure statement could not be used since no recovery was effected pursuant to it. Manan Dar's counsel, Mr. Danish Majid Dar, additionally argued false implication, pointing to Habeas Corpus Petition No. 70/2024 filed on 19 March 2024, which alleged the appellant had been detained by the Special Operation Group since 16 March 2024 at 10:00 PM.

Notably, the appellants did not challenge the charge under Section 13 of the UAPA, which penalises unlawful activities. The bench observed that this focus on Sections 18, 39, and 40(2) was deliberate, since those provisions trigger the strict bail restrictions under Section 43D(5) of the Act.

The Bench's Reasoning on the Legal Standard

The bench drew on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, and the seven principles laid down in Sajjan Kumar v. CBI, (2010) 9 SCC 368. Those principles establish that at the charge-framing stage, the court must assess whether a prima facie case exists — whether the accused might have committed the offence — not whether conviction is certain. The court is entitled to sift evidence but cannot conduct a mini-trial.

The bench held that the trial court was bound to apply its judicial mind to whether sufficient grounds existed to presume guilt, and that if the foundational ingredients of an offence were conspicuously absent, discharge would be warranted. But if grave suspicion, not adequately explained, was disclosed, framing of charge was justified.

Against this standard, the bench rejected the argument that the case rested solely on confessional statements before an Executive Magistrate. The case against the appellants rested on physical recovery, forensic analysis, IPDR data, income certificates, and FSL expert opinion — not merely on statements made before a magistrate.

Section 13: Charge Left Unchallenged, Sustained on Poster Contents

Even though the appellants did not formally challenge the Section 13 charge, the bench independently observed that the poster contents were sufficient to sustain it. The court found that the posters carried a deliberate attempt to alienate residents of Jammu and Kashmir from the rest of India and to spread disaffection against the nation. The reliance placed by the appellants on U.T. of J&K v. Ghulam Mohd. Lone, CrlA(D) No. 45/2024, was held to be entirely misplaced.

Section 18: Conspiracy Charge Upheld on Forensic and Circumstantial Record

Section 18 of the UAPA punishes conspiracy to commit or facilitation of a terrorist act. Section 15 defines a terrorist act to include acts intended to threaten the sovereignty or integrity of India or to strike terror among the people. The bench noted that the case went well beyond mere possession of posters and cash. The appellants were alleged to have been in active contact with a Pakistan-based handler and with Momin Gulzar, a TRF terrorist. The photograph of Gulzar found on Manan Dar's phone — taken on 16 March 2024 and absent from the public internet — demonstrated direct contact. The cash of ₹1,00,000 was intended for delivery to Gulzar. The physical transportation of the posters and cash, the court held, demonstrated participation in a wider conspiracy to strike terror among polling personnel and to challenge India's sovereignty. The contention that no evidence connected the appellants to Section 18 was held to be legally unsustainable at this stage.

Section 39: Support to Terrorist Organisation Charge Upheld

Section 39 concerns support given to a proscribed terrorist organisation. The bench found that the recovery of propaganda posters, cash, and glue from the appellants' conscious possession, combined with the digital nexus established through the Telegram channel, provided incriminating material showing the appellants were actively working as associates of TRF. The poster content recovered on 19 March 2024 matched content published on the TRF-linked Telegram channel on 14 March 2024. Nothing on record at this stage rebutted the connection between the channel and TRF.

Section 40(2): Fund-Raising Charge Against Manan Dar Sustained

The court found no error in framing the charge under Section 40(2) against Manan Dar. The prosecution had established that he possessed ₹1,00,000 without any corresponding bank withdrawal and with a declared monthly income of ₹12,000. The court accepted this as sufficient prima facie material for the charge of raising funds for a terrorist organisation.

The Habeas Corpus Argument Rejected

Manan Dar's counsel pressed the argument that the Habeas Corpus petition filed on 19 March 2024 — HCP No. 70/2024 — proved false implication, since it alleged he was detained from 16 March 2024 onward by the Special Operation Group. The bench examined this submission on merits despite it not having been raised in the memo of appeal, because the counsel had placed the writ petition, the respondents' reply, and the Writ Court's order dated 20 March 2024 on record.

The bench declined to accept the argument. It held that bald averments in a habeas corpus petition do not constitute evidence, let alone evidence of “sterling quality” capable of proving false implication. Relying on State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi, (2005) 1 SCC 568, the court reiterated that at the charge-framing stage, the defence of the accused cannot be put forth, and a plea of this nature constitutes a matter for trial, not a ground to set aside the order framing charges.

Order

Both appeals were dismissed as devoid of merit. The bench directed that any observations made in the judgment are tentative in nature and shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits during trial. The trial court was directed to remain uninfluenced by these observations and to arrive at its own independent conclusion upon conclusion of the trial.