Srinagar, July 9: The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has upheld the invocation of provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against two Srinagar residents accused of displaying posters of The Resistance Front (TRF), holding that the allegations disclose a prima facie case warranting prosecution under the anti-terror law.

The High Court dismissed the petition filed by the two accused challenging the charges framed against them under the UAPA, observing that the trial court had rightly taken cognizance of the material collected during the investigation.
According to the prosecution, the accused were allegedly involved in displaying posters of TRF, a banned terrorist outfit, at various locations in Srinagar with the intention of promoting the activities and agenda of the organisation and creating fear among the public.
The investigation agency contended that the recovered material, witness statements and other evidence indicated the accused's alleged association with activities intended to support and publicise the outfit, thereby attracting provisions of the UAPA.
Rejecting the plea for quashing the charges, the High Court observed that at the stage of framing charges, the court is only required to determine whether a prima facie case exists and not to conduct a detailed appreciation of the evidence.
The court held that the allegations and material collected during the investigation were sufficient to justify proceeding with the trial under the relevant provisions of the UAPA. It observed that the veracity of the prosecution's evidence can only be tested during the course of the trial.
The High Court further noted that issues relating to the innocence or guilt of the accused cannot be adjudicated at the preliminary stage and must be decided after recording evidence before the trial court.
Accordingly, the court upheld the order framing charges against the two accused and dismissed their challenge, clearing the way for the trial to proceed before the designated court.
The High Court clarified that its observations were confined to deciding the petition and would not influence the trial court while adjudicating the case on its merits after evaluating the evidence produced by both sides.