Excelsior Correspondent
SRINAGAR, May 20: The High Court rejected the bail of two persons hailing from Baramulla for commission of offences under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Arun Palli and Justice Rajnesh Oswal rejected the bail application of Imtiyaz Qadir Bhat of Chandsooma Kanispora Baramulla and Saleem Yousuf Makai Jalal Sahib, Baramulla.
Both filed an appeal under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 challenging the validity of the order dated 31st January 2026, passed by the Court of Special Judge designated under the UAPA, Baramulla at Sopore wherein the Special Court rejected their application for grant of bail in FIR No. 208/2025.
The bench after perusal of the impugned order, said there is no ground to warrant the interference with the order of rejection of bail by the court below. “The order passed by the 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”, the court further added.
The prosecution submitted before the court that 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”, the prosecution further contended.
The counsel appearing for applicants contended that the grounds of arrest were not provided to the appellants. “We have perused the application filed by the appellants before the 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 25th November 2025, whereupon arrest memos and separate intimation memos were prepared on the spot, and the grounds of arrest were duly conveyed”, the court replied.
The court said that 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”, read the judgment.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
