Jodhpur, Nov. 7 -- The Rajasthan High Court has refused to quash UAPA charges against eight accused in the 2022 murder of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal, holding that the prosecution material raised sufficient prima facie suspicion to warrant a trial and that the evidence could not be scrutinised through a "mini-trial" at the stage of framing charges. Chief Justice Sanjay K Agrawal and justice Sameer Jain on November 5 dismissed two connected appeals challenging the trial court's orders dated January 12 and February 13, 2024, framing charges under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), besides provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Arms Act. The appeals were filed by Mohammed Riyaz Attari, Mohammed Gaus, Mohsin Khan, Aasif Husain, Mohammad Mohaseen, Waseem Ali, Mohammed Javed Khan and Muslim Khan. All eight are lodged in Ajmer Central Jail. According to the prosecution, the accused conspired to murder Kanhaiya Lal over social media posts in which he shared and forwarded remarks by former BJP spokesperson Nupur Sharma about Prophet Muhammad during a television debate. The posts allegedly provoked the accused, who acted with common intention to kill him. The murder was preceded by threats and was intended to hurt religious sentiments and disturb communal harmony, the prosecution alleged. Challenging the charges, the accused argued that the trial court had invoked the UAPA without establishing the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 16, 18 and 20 of the Act. Their counsel contended that the deceased sharing a social media message could not, by itself, justify invoking anti-terrorism provisions. They also questioned the evidentiary value of videos allegedly recovered during the investigation, arguing that these contained no specific words or expressions capable of disturbing public tranquillity or threatening the security of the area. The defence further argued that there was no material to establish that the accused were members of or associated with an unlawful organisation, or that their alleged actions were connected with its activities. Opposing the appeals, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) argued that the allegations had to be examined in the context of the subsequent threats, the accused's conduct, the recovered videos and other investigation material, rather than isolating the social media post. The agency submitted that criminal conspiracy under Section 18 of the UAPA covers not only the commission of a terrorist act but also attempts, abetment, incitement, facilitation and preparatory acts. The actual commission of a terrorist act was not necessary to invoke the provision, it argued. The NIA also said conspiracy was generally established through the cumulative effect of circumstances and conduct, as direct evidence of an agreement between conspirators was seldom available. The alleged association and concerted conduct of the accused, it argued, needed to be examined during the trial. Rejecting the defence arguments, the high court observed that at the stage of framing charges, a court must determine whether the prosecution material discloses a prima facie case or raises grave suspicion warranting a trial, not whether the accused are guilty. Relying on Supreme Court judgments, including Sajjan Kumar vs CBI and State of Tamil Nadu vs N Suresh Rajan, the bench reiterated that courts should not conduct a mini-trial or meticulously assess the reliability of each piece of evidence at this stage. The judgment noted that where the material raises unexplained grave suspicion against an accused, framing charges and proceeding with the trial is justified. The bench also said courts must independently satisfy themselves that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are prima facie made out and cannot function merely as a mouthpiece of the prosecution. On the defence objections concerning the recovered clips and the alleged absence of links with an unlawful organisation, the court said these could not be treated as conclusive grounds for discharge without examining the evidence. Finding no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the trial court's orders, the court dismissed both appeals and upheld the charges....