HC dismisses petition of ex-Bar President

22/02/2025

JAMMU, Feb 21: Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed the petition filed by Mian Abdul Qayoom Ex- Kashmir Bar President challenging his arrest and remand in Advocate Babar Qadri Murder case.
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul after hearing both the sides observed thatt he investigation initially resulted in a charge sheet against six accused, excluding Qayoom. However, a subsequent Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the State Investigation Agency (SIA) in 2022 initiated further investigation, leading to Qayoom's arrest on June 25, 2024.
Assailing his detention Advocate Sakal Bhushan, representing Qayoom, contended that the arrest was illegal, primarily due to the non-compliance with Section 41A(3) Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. He argued that the grounds of arrest provided were vague and did not meet the standards set by the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State. Furthermore, the remand orders lacked judicial application of mind and were a result of mechanical endorsement by the Special Judge (NIA), he submitted.
Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri argued that the writ petition challenging the judicial remand orders was not maintainable under the law. Maintaining that arrest followed due process and Qayoom was informed of the grounds of arrest in compliance with Section 43B(1) of UAPA Mr Qadri argued that the petitioner's involvement in a conspiracy with proscribed terrorist outfits to assassinate Advocate Qadri was established through substantial evidence.
Vehemently seeking the dismissal of the petitioner Mr Qadri had submitted, ".. for all those years the petitioner has remained as the President, Bar Association. He has only propagated for breaking of J&K from the Union of India and also encouraged armed uprising in J&K against India. He being President of Bar Association ought to have alleviated the issues of young lawyers rather than to brainwash them for his separatist goals, which is common knowledge"
After considering the rival contentions Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul observed that the grounds of arrest were provided to the petitioner as recorded in the first remand order dated June 26, 2024 as he rejected the argument that the grounds were not furnished at the time of arrest, noting that the Special Judge (NIA) had ensured compliance during the remand process.
Referring to the Supreme Court's precedents, including Prabir Purkayastha and Madhu Limaye, the court reiterated that procedural irregularities in arrest do not automatically vitiate remand orders unless a substantial violation of constitutional safeguards is established. Spotlighting the compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C in the instant case the court analyzed the issuance of multiple notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and observed that while Qayoom complied with these notices, his arrest was justified by the reasons recorded in the arrest memorandum. The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which mandate that reasons for arrest must be recorded, especially when an accused complies with appearance notices.
Addressing the petitioner's challenge to the remand orders, the court highlighted the principle that judicial officers must exercise independent scrutiny before granting remand. The court found that the Special Judge (NIA) had not acted mechanically but had applied judicial mind, as evidenced by the detailed remand orders reflecting the reasons for Qayoom's continued custody.
Commenting on the petitioner's alleged Non-Cooperation the court noted that despite being served notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the petitioner was found to be evasive and non-cooperative during the investigation. The SIT had gathered significant evidence linking Qayoom to the conspiracy behind Advocate Qadri's murder, justifying his custodial interrogation, the court maintained.
Dismissing the petitioner's argument that the grounds of arrest were generic and not specific to his role in the offence the court held that the grounds of arrest met the standards of specificity required by law, enabling the petitioner to understand the accusations against him. Concluding that the arrest of Qayoom was lawful as all the procedural requirements under the Constitution and Cr.P.C. were fully satisfied the habeas corpus petition was dismissed, Court order.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty