The police officer stands outside the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in Srinagar. | Photo Credit: Nissar Ahmad
The Jamm and Kashmir High Court noted that “he advocates and stimulates illegal activity by claiming that J&K is illegally occupied and must be separated from the Indian Association”, attracting parts of the law on illegal activities (prevention) (UAPA).
“Specifically, Section 13 states that anyone participates, stimulates, advocates or abtesis will be punished by imprisonment that can extend to seven years and is also responsible for a fine. Such accusations against respondents directly fall into the section of the section 13 (1). The commission and enhance the commission and enhance the commission and enhance the commission and is recorded that it is recorded that it is recorded that it is recorded and must be separated from the Indian Union. PariHar.
The bench has heard a petition that questioned the order to release the judge for the next meeting (special judge) for the court with criminal offenses under the law of ULA (P) for the districts of Baramulla, Bandipora and Kupwara. The respondents who faced prosecution for offenses according to Section 13 of UAP in Fir 41/2015 from the Bandipora Police Station stood “released by a judge”.
However, the divisional bench noted that the order was not “sustainable in any number, because he suffers from misunderstanding of the mind and incorrect exercise of law, ie on his face is perverted and therefore earmarked”.
“The fees are restored towards the court court to continue with the framework of the accusation against respondents for the offense under Section 13 of the ULA Act (P) and then continued to destroy Challan in accordance with the law,” the court ordered.
The Court of Justice has been of the opinion that since the time the respondents increased the slogans without inciting violence, “Section 13 was not usable”.
“This view was palpably incorrect, because what section 13 (1), reading with Section 2 (1) (o) of the UAP, concerns the Commission of Unlawful Activities and the accusation against respondents was directly included in the” unlawful activity “. It seems that the Court did not appreciate the version of the witnesses according to Section 161 CRPC, who were present on the spot when it was said that the occurrence occurred, ”said the division.
Published – 25 July 2025 12:15
