HC denies bail to accused in terror-related case involving Al-Badr Outfit

15/08/2025

SRINAGAR, Aug 14: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar has dismissed the bail application of Ghulam Nabi Rather, a resident of Kachloo, Handwara, District Kupwara, who is facing trial in a terror-related case under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Arms Act. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sindhu Sharma and Justice Shahzad Azeem upheld the trial court's decision, citing the serious nature of the charges and the prima facie evidence connecting the accused with terrorist activities.
The appellant, Ghulam Nabi Rather, had approached the High Court seeking bail after his earlier application was rejected by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Designated Court under NIA Act), Kupwara, on December 31, 2024. The High Court dismissed his appeal on August 13, 2025, maintaining that the restrictions under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA apply firmly in his case.
Background of the Case
The case dates back to April 12, 2021, when police in Kupwara laid a joint checkpoint at Kachloo Crossing involving J&K Police, 30 Rashtriya Rifles (RR), 92 BN CRPF, and Special Operations Group (SOG) to monitor militant activity. During the naka checking, three men on a motorcycle reportedly attempted to flee but were apprehended. The individuals were identified as Showket Ahmad Ganie, Mohammad Yaseen Rather, and the appellant, Ghulam Nabi Rather - all residents of Kachloo.
A personal search of the trio reportedly led to the recovery of grenades, a mobile phone, and a letter-pad associated with the banned terrorist organization Al-Badr. An FIR (No. 20/2021) was registered under Sections 13, 18, 19, 20, 23, and 39 of the UAPA, Section 7/25 of the Indian Arms Act, and Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act.
Further investigations revealed that the three accused were allegedly working as Overground Workers (OGWs) for Al-Badr and had ties with militants operating in the forests of Badrkali. The police claimed that the accused were facilitating militant movement and had links with commander Abdul Gani Khawaja (later killed in an encounter), Saleem Yousuf Rather, and Ikhlaq Ahmad Sheikh, all believed to be active operatives of Al-Badr. A significant cache of arms and ammunition was recovered from the forest area.
Trial Status and Legal Arguments
The prosecution has cited 25 witnesses, of which 22 have already been examined, indicating that the trial is in its final stages. The High Court noted that the material on record points toward the accused's complicity in furthering terrorist activities.
Advocate Hussain Rashid, representing the appellant, raised several grounds for bail, including prolonged incarceration (over four years), alleged invalid sanction for prosecution under the UAPA, and questions over the competence of the investigating officer. He argued that continued custody violated Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, including the right to a speedy trial.
However, Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin-ul-Showkat Qadri, representing the Union Territory, strongly opposed the bail plea. He argued that the charges were grave, involving national security, and the appellant remained a threat due to his association with banned outfits. Qadri emphasized that the materials collected during the investigation sufficiently establish a prima facie case against the accused.
Court's Observations
The Division Bench rejected the appellant's claim regarding invalid sanction, stating that the appellant failed to provide any substantial evidence or legal basis for this assertion. On the question of an incompetent investigating officer, the Court pointed out that this issue had already been dealt with and dismissed by the Trial Court earlier in the proceedings.
The Court also dismissed the contention regarding delay in the trial, citing that substantial progress had been made, with most witnesses already examined. It observed that simply being in jail for a long period does not automatically entitle an accused to bail under UAPA, particularly when the trial is nearing completion.
The Bench emphasized that under Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, bail can only be granted if there are no reasonable grounds to believe that the accusations are prima facie true - a threshold that the appellant had failed to meet.
Final Verdict
In its concluding remarks, the Court stated that given the nature of the allegations and the evidence recorded, granting bail would be against public interest and might potentially endanger ongoing investigations and national security. Therefore, the Court held that:
"...we are satisfied that there is prima facie material on record indicating the complicity of the Appellant in carrying out the alleged terrorist activities so as to bring unrest within the country, therefore, at this stage, indulgence is unwarranted."
The appeal was dismissed, and the bail plea rejected. The Court, however, clarified that its observations are limited to the context of the bail application and shall not prejudice the outcome of the ongoing trial.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty