The Rajasthan High Court has upheld the framing of charges under the stringent Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) against eight accused in the 2022 murder of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal, dismissing the appeals where they had challenged the trial court’s order.A Division Bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain, in a judgment delivered on November 5, held that the objections raised by the accused regarding the recovered videos, the absence of specific words or expressions affecting public tranquillity, and their alleged lack of membership in any unlawful organisation could not, by themselves, be considered sufficient grounds for discharging them without examining the entire prosecution material.The Bench said that the allegations of conspiracy and the circumstances surrounding the incident had to be considered together and that “the absence of direct evidence of conspiracy, by itself, cannot be decisive, as such an agreement may be inferred from the cumulative effect of the circumstances.”Also Read | Kanhaiya Lal murder case: Court grants bail to man chargesheeted under Arms Act by NIAThe HC was hearing two appeals by eight accused challenging the application of UAPA against them. While one was by main accused Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Ghouse Mohammad, the second plea was filed by Mohsin Khan, Asif Husain, Mohammad Mohsin, Wasim Ali, Mohammed Javed Khan and Muslim Khan.In their appeals, the accused had challenged the trial court’s January 12, 2024, order framing charges and its February 13, 2024, order formally pronouncing the order on charge.On June 28, 2022, Mohammed Riyaz Attari and Ghouse Mohammad had posed as customers and hacked to death Kanhaiya Lal Teli at his shop in Udaipur over a post shared by him on social media in support of Nupur Sharma, a BJP spokesperson who was suspended for her objectionable remarks about the Prophet during a live television debate.Also Read | The two men who killed Kanhaiya Lal must face the full force of the law, they must not get the power to spread their poison‘UAPA not made out’Story continues below this adThe lawyers for the accused mainly contended that the recovered videos contained nothing that could “disturb public tranquility, disrupt social peace or threaten the security of the area.” They also said there was no specific threat directed at any individual, community, caste or religion, and that the prosecution had failed to establish the grounds for invoking the UAPA. Further, they argued that there was no evidence linking them to any unlawful organisation or showing that their actions were connected to one. They contended that the trial court had framed charges under the UAPA without properly examining the evidence or establishing the essential requirements of the law.The NIA argued that under the UAPA, conspiracy to commit a terrorist act also covers attempts, abetment, incitement, or preparatory acts, etc. even if the terrorist act has not been carried out. It said conspiracy could be established through the cumulative effect of the conduct of the accused and surrounding circumstances, “as direct evidence of an agreement between conspirators is rarely available.”The agency said that the alleged threats, the subsequent conduct of the accused, the recovered videos and the other material collected during investigation, when considered cumulatively, “are required to be tested during trial and cannot be disjointedly assessed at the stage of framing of charges.”On the accused’s claims that the recovered videos do not contain any specific words capable of disturbing public tranquility or social peace, it said that such a claim “is premature and misconceived.”Story continues below this adAlso Read | Kanhaiya Lal was killed by ‘BJP people’, party raising issue now for polls: Ashok Gehlot“The contents of the recovered videos, the circumstances in which they were recorded or circulated, and their alleged connection with the incident in question are matters requiring proper examination and appreciation of evidence during trial. The absence of any particular expression, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of the absence of the ingredients of the offences alleged,” the NIA said.Similarly, on the claim that the accused are not members of an unlawful organisation the NIA said that “the allegations pertaining to conspiracy and the offences under the UAPA are required to be examined in the light of the entire material collected during investigation and not merely on the basis of the appellants’ assertion regarding the absence of formal membership.” It said that “the alleged association, concerted conduct, and circumstances surrounding the incident are matters which warrant judicial scrutiny through a full-fledged trial.”“The question as to whether the material ultimately establishes the requisite ingredients of the offences, including those under sections 18 and 20 of the UAPA, is a matter to be adjudicated upon after the evidence is duly led,” it said, stating that the trial court has “rightly exercised” its jurisdiction in framing charges against the accused.‘Insufficient grounds to interfere’The HC said that at this stage, it is not required to conduct a “mini-trial or meticulously assess the veracity and evidentiary value of the material, which are matters to be examined during trial… Nevertheless, the Court must independently satisfy itself that the essential ingredients of the offences alleged are prima facie made out.”Story continues below this adAlso Read | Tailor hacked to death in 2022 over online post: Chargesheet filed, why hasn’t govt formed fast-track court yet: Kanhaiya Lal’s sonThe High Court said there was no sufficient reason to interfere with the trial court’s decision to frame charges. It said that at this stage, it only had to examine whether the prosecution’s evidence raised a prima facie case or serious suspicion against the accused, and not determine whether they were ultimately guilty or innocent.Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Union of India versus Prafulla Kumar Samal and Sajjan Kumar versus CBI, it said that the apex court has “consistently held that where the material on record discloses grave suspicion which remains unexplained, the framing of charges is justified.”The Bench also rejected the accused’s objections regarding the recovered videos, the absence of specific expressions affecting public tranquility and their alleged lack of association with an unlawful organisation as conclusive grounds for discharge, adding that “Interference at this stage would amount to an unwarranted pre-emption of the prosecution proceedings.”