The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan has upheld the framing of charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) against eight individuals accused in the 2022 murder of Udaipur tailor Kanhaiya Lal. In a judgment delivered on November 5, 2026, the Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sameer Jain dismissed the criminal appeals filed by the accused, clearing the path for the trial court to proceed with the prosecution of the case. The ruling establishes that the evidence submitted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) provides a sufficient prima facie basis for the charges, rejecting arguments that the appellants should be discharged at this preliminary stage.

The accused—Mohammed Riyaz Attari, Mohammed Gaus, Mohsin Khan, Aasif Husain, Mohammad Mohaseen, Waseem Ali, Mohammed Javed Khan, and Muslim Khan—had challenged the trial court’s orders dated January 12 and February 13, 2024, which formally framed charges against them. These charges include serious offenses under Sections 16, 18, and 20 of the UAPA, in addition to multiple provisions under the Indian Penal Code, such as criminal conspiracy, murder, and promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion. The appellants argued that the prosecution failed to provide material evidence linking them to any unlawful organization or demonstrating that their actions threatened the security of the nation.

Assessing Evidence Before Trial

In their defense, counsel for the appellants contended that the videos recovered during the investigation lacked specific content that could legally constitute a threat to public tranquility or safety. They argued that the incident stemmed from reactions to social media posts regarding remarks made by Nupur Sharma during a televised debate, and that these individual actions did not meet the stringent legal thresholds required to invoke the UAPA. Furthermore, the defense maintained that the absence of formal membership in any banned terrorist organization should have been sufficient grounds for the trial court to refuse the application of these specific statutes.

The High Court, however, emphasized that the procedural stage of framing charges is not intended for a deep dive into the probative value of every piece of evidence. The Court reiterated that its role is not to conduct a mini-trial or determine the final guilt or innocence of the parties, but rather to evaluate whether the collective weight of the prosecution’s material justifies proceeding to a full trial.

"At this stage, the Court is required to ascertain whether the prosecution material gives rise to a prima facie case or grave suspicion against the accused, and not to undertake a meticulous examination of the evidence with a view to determining their ultimate guilt or innocence," the bench stated in its judgment. By applying this standard, the Court determined that the allegations, when considered together, painted a picture of a criminal conspiracy that required further investigation through standard judicial proceedings.

Proving Conspiracy Through Circumstance

A central point of contention in the appeal was the alleged lack of direct evidence regarding a formal criminal conspiracy. The prosecution, led by the NIA, argued that the nature of the offenses—involving planned violence following threats—inherently suggests a coordinated effort, even if direct documentation of an agreement between the accused is unavailable. The NIA submitted that the accused’s conduct, the surrounding circumstances of the murder, and the strategic dissemination of videos documenting the crime form a cohesive chain of evidence that must be tested during a trial.

The Court agreed with the prosecution’s perspective, noting that the existence of a conspiracy is often derived from the cumulative impact of actions rather than direct testimony or explicit documentation. Relying on settled legal precedents, the Division Bench noted that if the material on record creates a "grave suspicion" that remains unexplained, the framing of charges is not only permitted but necessary.

"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," the Court noted. This judicial observation highlights that the legal system recognizes the difficulties in gathering direct evidence for acts of terror and permits the court to rely on circumstantial connectivity during the initial stages of criminal litigation.

The Path to Resolution

The High Court’s refusal to interfere with the trial court’s order means the proceedings will now move forward as scheduled. The accused remain in custody in the Central Jail at Ajmer. The Court’s decision is strictly limited to the framing of charges, and the bench explicitly instructed that its observations should not influence the eventual trial proceedings or the independent assessment of evidence by the trial judge.

By rejecting the appeals, the High Court has affirmed the trial court’s authority to weigh the " broad probabilities of the case " rather than acting as a mere " post office " for the prosecution. This decision underscores that the accused will have every opportunity to challenge the veracity, credibility, and evidentiary value of the documents and testimonials presented against them when the trial begins.

The case, which centers on the brutal murder of Kanhaiya Lal in his shop in Udaipur in June 2022, has been a significant point of concern for state law enforcement and national security agencies. The dismissal of these appeals marks a procedural milestone in the case, ensuring that the judicial process will now enter the phase of testimony and evidence examination, which will determine the final legal accountability of all eight individuals involved in the incident. The trial is expected to continue in accordance with the standard legal process, following the directions provided by the High Court.