The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has raised serious concerns about a major discrepancy in a 2019 terror case, observing that the First Information Report (FIR) appears to have been registered 75 minutes before the alleged recovery of arms that led to the case. Click Here To Follow Our WhatsApp Channel
The observation came while the court was hearing a bail application filed by accused Sabeel Ahmad Baba.
Court Notes Unusual Sequence of Events
A single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti pointed to what it described as a “very striking aspect” of the case. According to court records, FIR No. 61/2019 was registered at Police Station Lakhanpur at 8:30 am on September 12, 2019.
However, the prosecution claims that the alleged offence took place at 9:45 am on the same day, when a truck was intercepted and weapons were reportedly recovered.
The court said it could not ignore this apparent contradiction in the prosecution’s version of events and took serious note of the matter.
Arms Recovery Claims
According to the prosecution, police intercepted truck JK-13E/2000 at Lakhanpur. The vehicle was allegedly being driven by Sabeel Ahmad Baba.
During the search, police claimed to have recovered:
- Four AK-56 rifles
- Two AK-47 rifles
- Six loaded magazines containing 30 rounds each
Besides Baba, two other individuals travelling in the truck, Ubaid-ul-Islam and Jahangir Ahmad Parray, were also taken into custody.
Further investigation led to the inclusion of Bashir Ahmad Lone and Suhail Ahmad Dar as accused persons. Ashiq Ahmad Nengroo, also known as Ashiq Molvi, was named as the sixth accused in the case.
Charges Filed Against Six Accused
The chargesheet, filed in March 2020, accused six individuals of offences under Sections 120-B and 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code, along with provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Arms Act.
Missing Original FIR Raises More Questions
The High Court also expressed concern that the original FIR was not included in the final police report submitted before the trial court.
Justice Rahul Bharti referred to a report from the trial court stating that the original FIR had initially been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua. Later, when the designated NIA court in Jammu sought the document, it was reportedly not received.
As a result, the prosecution provided a copy of the FIR, which was then attached to the case record.
Court Seeks Information on Investigating Officer
Taking note of the missing FIR and other issues in the investigation, the High Court directed the government to inform it whether the investigating officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police Kamal Dev Bhagat, is still in service.
The court stated that if the officer remains in service, he must appear personally before the court on the next date of hearing.
The court also instructed the petitioner’s counsel to submit a detailed chronology of prosecution witnesses who have already testified and those who are yet to be examined.
Accused Remain in Custody
Sabeel Ahmad Baba and two co-accused were arrested on September 12, 2019. They have remained in custody as undertrial prisoners for several years while continuing to seek bail.
The latest order follows earlier proceedings in which the High Court considered the petitioner’s claim that the original FIR was missing from the trial record. After reviewing the scanned case file, the court observed that the available record appeared to support the claim and sought clarification from the Special Judge under the NIA Act regarding the availability of the original FIR.
The matter is scheduled for further hearing as the court continues to examine the circumstances surrounding the case and the investigation record.