J&K-Ladakh HC Denies Bail To Two Accused In Alleged JKLF-Y Revival Case, Allows Fresh Pleas After Key Witnesses On Disclosures And Recoveries Are Examined

The appellants were accused in a prosecution arising from FIR No. 23/2023, registered under Sections 10, 13 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), and Sections 121-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.

The prosecution alleged that they participated in a conspiracy to revive the banned JKLF-Y and relied, among other things, on seized documents, electronic material and communications.

The appellants’ bail applications were dismissed by the Trial Court on 12 December 2025; they appealed those orders.

Both appellants had been charged under Section 18 of the UAPA, and, by the time the appeals were considered, the prosecution had examined 12 of its 68 witnesses, while material witnesses concerning the alleged disclosures and recoveries remained to be examined.

Bhat also relied on his health condition as a ground for bail.

The Court treated Section 43-D of the UAPA as applicable because the appellants had been charged under Section 18, and considered the bail applications in light of the alleged offences and the material then available.

It also considered the charges under Sections 10 and 13 of the UAPA and Sections 121-A and 201 of the IPC.

The Court referred to Syed Iftikhar Andrabi v. National Investigation Agency, 2026 INSC 503, but held that it did not apply to the facts and circumstances before it.

The judgment does not set out a separate formulation of the statutory test under Section 43-D(5).

The Court declined to assess the merits of the prosecution evidence while material witnesses concerning the appellants’ alleged disclosures and the resulting recoveries remained unexamined; it considered that evidence relevant to assessing the appellants’ roles and the prosecution’s case.

It also noted the Trial Court’s reliance on the appellants’ antecedents and the alleged recovery of secessionist documents and electronic material, and found no basis to interfere at that stage.

As to Bhat’s health, the Court noted the Trial Court’s findings that his coronary condition could be managed with medication and that the proposed gallbladder surgery was non-urgent; it also noted that he was receiving medical facilities in custody.

The appellants were permitted to apply afresh for bail before the Trial Court after the prosecution examines the material witnesses concerning their alleged disclosures and the recoveries; any such applications must be decided on their own merits and without being influenced by observations in the appellate judgment.

The Trial Court was requested to expedite the trial and avoid unnecessary adjournments.