Srinagar: A Jammu and Kashmir court has acquitted two men from Baramulla who spent six years in custody under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), ruling that serious inconsistencies in the prosecution's account of an alleged arms recovery made it unsafe to convict them.
Special Judge (UAPA) Feroz Ahmad Khan acquitted Huzaif Firdous Bhat, a resident of Choora in Sopore, and Ajaz Ahmad Bhat, from Kreeri in Baramulla, in a judgment delivered on November 5.
The court found that prosecution witnesses gave conflicting accounts of who had conducted the search and whether they were present when the alleged recovery was made. Their testimonies also differed on the quantity of ammunition seized, with some referring to 100 rounds and others to 40. There were further contradictions over whether the posters allegedly recovered belonged to the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba or Jaish-e-Mohammad.
Police had claimed that the two men were arrested on September 16, 2020, at a barricade on the National Highway near Kanispora in Baramulla during a joint operation involving the Jammu and Kashmir Police, the Army's 52 Rashtriya Rifles and the CRPF's 53rd battalion.
According to the FIR, the police recovered two hand grenades, 100 rounds of ammunition and two posters allegedly linked to Lashkar-e-Taiba. The court booked the accused under Sections 18, 23, and 39 of the UAPA and Sections 7 and 25 of the Arms Act.
The court also noted that the prosecution had not produced any independent witness to support the alleged recovery. It found no evidence connecting either accused to an identified terrorist, a terrorist act or any specific act of intentional assistance. The investigating officer, the judgment noted, had conceded that no such name had emerged during the investigation.
The accused had told the court that they were picked up from their homes at night. Advocates Azim Pandith and Tajamul Hussain represented them.
The acquittal comes after the two men spent six years in custody while facing charges under anti-terror and arms laws. The prosecution can challenge the judgment before a higher court.
(With inputs from media reports)