Jammu Kashmir High Court Denies Bail in Doda Terror Funding Case, Says Prima Facie Case Made Out Despite Five-Year Custody | Kashmir Life

SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by Khalid Latif Butt challenging the denial of bail in a terror funding case, holding that the material on record prima facie establishes his involvement and attracts the statutory bar under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.

A Division Bench of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar pronounced the judgment on April 8, 2026, upholding the January 4, 2025 order of the trial court rejecting the bail plea. The appeal, Criminal Appeal (D) No. 13/2025, was argued on behalf of the appellant by Rozina Afzal, Advocate, while the Union Territory of JK was represented by Priyanka Bhat, Advocate, appearing for Monika Kohli, Senior Additional Advocate General.

The case arises out of FIR No. 42/2020 registered in Doda, in which the appellant is facing trial under Sections 17, 18, 20, 21, 38 and 40 of the UAPA. As per the prosecution, the appellant was part of a Lashkar-e-Taiba module allegedly engaged in raising and distributing funds to facilitate militant activities in the Doda area. It is alleged that he was in contact with a Pakistan-based handler, Haroon alias Khubaib, and received funds through banking channels for further distribution among operatives.

According to the charge sheet, part of these funds was used for terror-related purposes, including an alleged payment of Rs 20,000 to a co-accused at Iqra Masjid in Doda for delivery of arms and ammunition. The prosecution has further alleged that the appellant handled SIM cards and received explosives, including a grenade, which were passed on to other accused on the directions of handlers. The investigation also refers to a transfer of Rs 83,847.58 into the appellant’s bank account from the alleged handler.

The trial court had denied bail on the ground that the offences fall under Chapters IV and VI of the UAPA and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the accusations against the appellant were prima facie true, thereby attracting the bar under Section 43-D(5) of the Act.

Upholding this view, the High Court observed that the case against the appellant is not based solely on disclosure statements but is supported by independent material, including financial transactions and other evidence collected during investigation. The Bench noted that the allegations indicate not only receipt of funds but also knowledge of their use in furtherance of terrorist activities, including procurement and movement of arms.

The court rejected the argument that prolonged incarceration warranted bail, noting that the appellant has been in custody since July 2020 but holding that mere delay in trial, particularly in cases involving serious offences affecting national security, cannot by itself justify release. It observed that the appellant is not a peripheral figure but is prima facie shown to be directly involved in activities relating to funding and facilitation of terrorism.

While considering the legal position, the Bench referred to precedents of the Supreme Court, including NIA vs. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali and Union of India vs. KA Najeeb, and reiterated that though constitutional courts retain the power to grant bail even under UAPA in appropriate cases, such discretion must be exercised in light of the nature of allegations and the strength of the material on record. The court held that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the accusations against him were not prima facie true.

The Bench also distinguished the judgments relied upon by the defence, observing that those cases involved either absence of direct evidence or significantly different factual circumstances, whereas in the present case the material indicates active involvement of the appellant in terror-related activities.

Dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit, the court granted liberty to the appellant to apply afresh for bail after the examination of remaining material witnesses. It also directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings, noting that charges were framed in 2022 and that out of 107 witnesses cited by the prosecution, 28 have been examined so far.