11 & 12 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CJ Court Case: CrlA (D) 16/2025 CrlM No. 220/2025 & CrlA (D) No. 17/2025 CrlM (221/2025 Rayaz Ahmad lone …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Advocate v/s Union Territory through Police Station Kralpora (Home) …. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Mohsin Qadri, Sr. AAG CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNESH OSWAL, JUDGE. ORDER 19.05.2025 1. Both these appeals i.e. CrlA (D) No. 16/2025 and CrlA (D) No. 17/2025, in fact, arise out of the common order dated 07.02.2025, whereby the bail applications preferred by the appellants were dismissed by the court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC) (Designated Court under UAPA Act) Kupwara (for short ‘the trial court’). Accordingly, both these appeals are clubbed, heard and being disposed of by this common order. 2. The appellants have impugned the order dated 07.02.2025 on the ground that in the site plan prepared by the Investigating Agency neither date nor time of its preparation has been mentioned, which causes serious doubt about its authenticity and the disclosure statements of the accused 2 CrlA(D) No. 16/2025& CrlA(D) No. 17/2025 persons purportedly recorded on the spot within a gap of only 2-3 minutes, are the verbatim copies of each other, which further make the prosecution story improbable. It is also contended that the alleged recovery and seizure of arms and ammunition from two separate hideouts as documented in the recovery memos, do not bear the signatures of the independent witnesses and the Investigating Officer, Dy. SP Adnan Ul Haq, during cross-examination before the trial court has admitted that due to mistake, time has been mentioned in the recovery memo. 3. Objections have been filed by the respondent in both the appeals objecting grant of bail to the appellants. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants have been in custody for the last two years and as such, they deserve to be enlarged on bail, more particularly in view of serious contradictions in the evidence led by the prosecution. 5. Per contra, Mr. Mohsin Qadri, learned Sr. AAG has argued that there are serious allegations against the appellants and further that out of 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 11 witnesses have already been examined, and only two witnesses are yet to be examined. He has further argued that the evidence cannot be appreciated while considering the issue of grant/refusal of bail. 6. Heard leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Briefly stated, the Police Station, Kralpora on 22.12.2022 received a reliable information from intelligence agencies that three persons namely, 3 CrlA(D) No. 16/2025& CrlA(D) No. 17/2025 Ab. Rouf Malik, Reyaz Ahmad Lone and Altaf Ahmad Payer belonging to the banned terrorist outfit-Hizbul Mujahidin had constructed hideouts in Dardsun Forest Area to provide safe shelter and other logistical support to the active terrorists of said outfit, so that they are able to carry out terrorist activities in the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kralpora and other parts of Valley. Accordingly, FIR No. 98/2022 under Section 39 of ULA(P) Act was registered and a joint search operation was carried out with SOG Karalpora and 17 JAKRIF. During the search operation, the above-mentioned accused persons were arrested for questioning and during questioning, they disclosed that they had constructed two hideouts in Dardsun Forest Area and had acquired arms and ammunition with the aid and assistance of other two alleged accused persons, namely-Abdul Majid Beigh and Sahil Ahmad Bhat. They further disclosed that they had kept the said Arms/Ammunition in the hideouts of Dardsun Forest Area. Based on the disclosure statement by the three accused persons, two man-made hideouts were busted in Darsun Forest area and recovery of following items concealed in a blue coloured plastic tank of capacity 100 L was made: I. AK-56 Rifle rusted bearing no PA 613=01 No. II. AK 56 Mag= 2 Nos. III AK 56 Rounds= 119 Nos. IV Pistol 9mm with Magazine= 1 No. V. 9mm Rounds = 4 No. 8. During investigation, a recovery memo was prepared but no independent witness could be cited as a witness to the recovery memo, due to non-availability. About 400-450 meters towards the eastern side of the above hideout, another hideout was identified by the accused persons and the following recoveries were made: 4 CrlA(D) No. 16/2025& CrlA(D) No. 17/2025 1. Detonators= 2 No. (in plastic Jar) 2. Wire bundle for IED=2 No. 3. IED = 1 No. 4. Hand Grenades = 6 No. 5. Plastic Jar (used to contain SNo. 1 –Detonators) 6. Polythene Bag 1 No. containing cash s. 64,000 (128x500) 9. After conclusion of the investigation, offences under section 7/25 Indian Arms Act, 4 Explosive substances Act and Sections 13, 18, 20, 23, 38 and 40 of ULA(P) Act were proved against Abdul Roaf Malik, Reyaz Ahmad Lone & Altaf Ahmad Payer and the charge sheet was laid on 17.06.2023 before the learned trial court. The appellants were charged for commission of offences under Section 7/25 India Arms Act, Section 4 Explosive substances Act and Sections 13, 18, 23, 39 and 40 of ULPA Act on 19.08.2023 by the learned trial court. The record further depicts that out of 13 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 11 witnesses have already been examined. 10. The allegations against the appellants are in respect of recovery of the huge cache of arms. The allegations are very serious in nature and out of 13 witnesses, 11 witnesses have already been examined. It is not a case that the witnesses have turned hostile and there is no evidence at all against the appellant. The grounds as urged in the memo of appeals and extracted as above by this Court, pertain to the merits of the case and in fact, the appellants want this court to appreciate the evidence critically, which can be done only after the conclusion of trial. It is settled law that while considering the issue of grant of bail, the evidence cannot be appreciated, as it would 5 CrlA(D) No. 16/2025& CrlA(D) No. 17/2025 amount to prejudging the case. (See “Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan, (2004) 7 SCC 528") 11. We have examined the order passed by the learned trial court and we do not find any reason to show indulgence. Both appeals are found to be misconceived. The same are, accordingly, dismissed. (RAJNESH OSWAL) (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE JAMMU 19.05.2025 Karam Chand/Secy. Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No KARAM CHAND 2025.05.21 13:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document