The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has granted bail to a 21-year-old woman in a case filed under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The court noted that the available evidence does not clearly show that she intended to engage in terrorist activities.
A Division Bench, consisting of Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, allowed her criminal appeal and overturned the July 7, 2025, decision of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Special Judge under the NIA Act), which had earlier denied her bail.
Shabnam Akhter, a resident of Bhall in Mahore tehsil of Reasi district, has been in custody since September 15, 2022. She was arrested in connection with FIR No. 109/2022 at Police Station Mahore. The FIR included charges under Sections 120-B and 122 of the IPC, multiple provisions of the UAPA, and sections of the Explosive Substances Act and Arms Act.
According to the prosecution, Shabnam Akhter’s husband, Zaffer Iqbal, was allegedly linked to the banned group Lashkar-e-Taiba and had received arms, ammunition, and cash, reportedly through a Pakistan-based handler. During the investigation, police said they recovered two Glock pistols, ammunition, a hand grenade, and ₹1.81 lakh in cash.
The prosecution claimed that part of this cash had been given to Shabnam for safekeeping, and ₹1 lakh was later deposited in her bank account as a fixed deposit receipt (FDR). She was charged under Sections 13, 38, and 40 of the UAPA for allegedly supporting a terrorist organization.
While reviewing the case, the High Court — reported by Kashmir Dot Com (KDC) — noted that apart from the recovery of ₹1.81 lakh from her parental home, there was no evidence showing that she had direct contact with any handler or knew in advance about the alleged terror-related items.
The Bench observed that all communications with the alleged handler were between co-accused individuals and third parties, and that Shabnam had been married only about a month before her arrest. The Court stated that simply holding cash, without proof of intent to support terrorism, does not automatically make her guilty under Sections 38 and 40 of the UAPA.
Citing Supreme Court rulings such as NIA v. Zahoor Ahmad Shah Watali, Union of India v. K.A. Najeeb, Gurwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, and Thwaha Fasal v. Union of India, the High Court emphasized that even under the strict bail rules of Section 43-D(5) of the UAPA, courts must check whether the accusations appear to be true on the face of it.
The Court concluded that there were no reasonable grounds to believe the charges against her were prima facie established.
Allowing her appeal, the High Court granted bail on the following conditions:
-
Furnish a personal bond of ₹1 lakh with two sureties of the same amount.
-
Appear before the trial court on all hearing dates.
-
Not leave the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir without prior permission.
-
Not engage in any similar offense.
The appeal is now disposed of, and the order has been sent to the trial court for compliance. (Agency)
