Kashmir Court Acquits 6 In Protest Case After 17 Years; Cites Weak Evidence, Missing UAPA Sanction
The Additional Sessions Judge (TADA/POTA) and Special Judge designated under the NIA said the case suffered from serious evidentiary gaps.
Published : February 26, 2026 at 5:34 PM IST
Srinagar: Nearly seventeen years after police alleged that a procession in Srinagar’s Solina market raised pro-azadi slogans and circulated secessionist posters, a special court has acquitted six men. The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish their involvement beyond reasonable doubt and had not obtained the mandatory sanction required under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
In his 17-page judgment, Manjeet Rai, Additional Sessions Judge (TADA/POTA) and Special Judge designated under the NIA Act in Srinagar, held that the case suffered from serious evidentiary gaps including failure of witnesses to identify the accused and absence of independent corroboration.
The prosecution was filed by the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir through Police Station Shergarhi, Srinagar, represented by Public Prosecutor Mohd. Saleem Wani. The accused were defended by advocate Shabir Ahmad Bhat and associates.
The case arose from FIR No. 117 of 2009 registered at Police Station Shergarhi. According to the prosecution, on October 22, 2009, police personnel on patrol in Solina market noticed a procession allegedly led by several individuals who were shouting slogans such as “Jabri Nata Tod Do, Kashmir Chod Do,” “Go India Go Back,” and *“Hum Kya Chahte Azadi.”
Investigators alleged that the participants were pasting posters and distributing printed material intended to spread anti-India sentiment and disturb the integrity of the Union. The posters allegedly carried the photograph of separatist leader Syed Ali Geelani along with slogans advocating continued struggle.
Following the incident, police registered the FIR under Section 13 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Section 120-B of the Ranbir Penal Code for criminal conspiracy.
The charge sheet named nine accused persons: Bashir Ahmad Dar son of Ghulam Rasool Dar of Beerwah Budgam; Abdul Hamid Wani son of Mohammad Subhan Wani of Shopian; Shakeel Ahmad Yatoo son of Ghulam Nabi of Nanihal Shopian; Nisar Ahmad Najar son of Abdul Gani of Shopian; Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat son of Ghulam Ahmad Bhat of Shopian; Bashir Ahmad Dar son of Mohammad Akbar Dar of Pulwama; Mohammad Yousuf Ganie son of Ghulam Mohammad Ganai of Nadbalgam Anantnag; Mir Hafizullah son of Ghulam Mohammad War of Bonapora Akingam Anantnag; and Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Andrabi son of Abdul Salaam Andrabi of Rathoosa Tral.
During the course of proceedings, Abdul Hamid Wani died before charges were framed, while Bashir Ahmad Dar of Beerwah and Mir Hafizullah died during the trial. The case against them stood abated.
The court framed charges against the remaining accused under Section 13 UAPA and Section 120-B RPC (Ranbir Penal Code). They pleaded not guilty and the prosecution proceeded to examine five witnesses, all of them police officials connected with the investigation.
Among them was SP Feroz Ahmad Qadri, who had taken over the investigation as SDPO Shergarhi. He testified that after the FIR was registered he reached Solina and saw a gathering raising slogans such as “Hum Kya Chahte Azadi, Sheen Ke Lenge Azadi.” He also said that posters allegedly carried by the crowd bore the photograph of Syed Ali Geelani.
However, under cross-examination he acknowledged that he had not personally witnessed the beginning of the incident and had no eyewitness knowledge of who had actually raised the slogans or distributed the posters.
Another witness, ASI Gyas-ud-Din, stated that he had prepared the docket containing the names of the arrested persons and that seizure and arrest memos were drawn. But he admitted that he did not know the accused and could not identify them in court.
A third police witness, Shabir Ahmad, initially supported the prosecution’s version that a procession had raised anti-India slogans and resorted to stone pelting when police arrived. Yet when asked to identify the accused, he failed to recognize any of them and was declared hostile.
The fourth witness, Mohammad Ismail, named some of the accused as leading the crowd but conceded during cross-examination that key documents including the seizure memo had been prepared at the police station rather than on the spot.
The final witness, retired Deputy Superintendent of Police Mohammad Yousuf Bandh, testified that he had only finalized the investigation and filed the charge sheet after reviewing earlier work done by the investigating officer.
While examining the evidence, the court noted that none of the principal witnesses had identified the accused as participants in the alleged procession during their testimony.
“The identity of the accused as perpetrators of the alleged offence must be established beyond reasonable doubt through reliable evidence,” the court observed.
The judge noted that even the investigating officer had conceded that he could not identify the accused in court and had not personally witnessed the alleged slogans being raised. The court also found serious deficiencies in the alleged recovery of posters and flags from the spot.
“Crucially, the seizure memo does not record from which particular accused the posters were recovered,” the court stated, noting that this omission was particularly significant because possession and distribution of such posters formed the core of the prosecution case.
Another weakness identified by the court was the absence of any independent witnesses despite the incident allegedly occurring in a busy market area. The court noted that even prosecution witnesses acknowledged that around 100 to 150 people were present during the procession.
“Where their evidence suffers from material contradictions, omissions and improvements, and where no attempt is made to join independent witnesses in a busy market area, the Court must exercise greater caution,” the judge observed. A central legal issue in the case concerned the requirement of prior sanction before prosecution under the UAPA.
The court noted that the investigating officer had acknowledged that sanction from the competent authority was required but could not confirm whether it had actually been obtained. No sanction order was produced before the court during trial.
“Prosecution under Section 13 UAPA is conditioned upon prior sanction by the competent government/authority,” the court held. “Absence of proof of valid sanction goes to the root of jurisdiction and vitiates the prosecution for that offence.”
The court also rejected the prosecution’s allegation of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B RPC. “To bring home a charge of conspiracy, prosecution must show an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means,” the judgment states.
In the present case, the court said, there was no evidence of prior planning or coordination among the accused. Their alleged presence in a crowd could not, by itself, establish a conspiracy. “Mere simultaneous presence in a crowd, even if some persons raise objectionable slogans, without more, does not by itself constitute proof of conspiracy,” the judge wrote.
After examining the entire record, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. “These deficiencies are not minor; they strike at the root of the prosecution case and render it unsafe to base a conviction upon the testimonies led,” the judgment said.
Consequently, the court acquitted Shakeel Ahmad Yatoo, Nisar Ahmad Najar, Parvaiz Ahmad Bhat, Bashir Ahmad Dar son of Mohammad Akbar Dar, Mohammad Yousuf Ganie, and Ghulam Mohi-ud-din Andrabi of all charges.
Their bail bonds were discharged, and the court ordered that the seized material be dealt with in accordance with law after the expiry of the period for appeal.
Read More:
