Kupwara Court Rejects Bail Pleas of Eight Policemen Accused of Custodial Torture

 

Mudasir Yaqoob

Srinagar, Dec 8: The Principal District and Sessions Judge Kupwara on Monday dismissed the bail applications of eight police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, accused of the illegal detention and custodial torture of a constable at the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara in February 2023.

 

 

The case arises from an FIR registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation following directions of the Supreme Court after the victim’s wife alleged that her husband, Constable Khursheed Ahmed Chowhan, had been subjected to brutal custodial torture under the guise of a narcotics investigation.

According to the CBI investigation, the constable was detained between February 20 and 26, 2023, during which he was allegedly beaten and forced to confess. Medical reports, CCTV footage from inside the interrogation facility, and forensic findings were cited as supporting the allegations. CCTV footage from February 26 reportedly shows the victim limping within the JIC premises, indicating possible physical abuse.

 

 

 

 

Those denied bail include DySP Aijaz Ahmad Naik, SI Reyaz Ahmad Mir, SPO Jahangeer Ahmad, Head Constables Mohd Younis Khan and Tanveer Ahmad Malla, Sergeant Constables Shakir Hussain Khoja and Altaf Hussain Bhat, and Constable Shahnawaz Ahmad Deedad. The chargesheet filed in October accuses them of criminal conspiracy, voluntarily causing hurt and grievous hurt, using force to extort confession, and wrongful confinement under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

 

 

 

 

The defence argued for bail on the grounds that the most serious charges—attempt to murder and grievous hurt by dangerous weapons—had been dropped and that there had been a “material change in circumstances” since the previous rejection of their bail pleas. They also contended that the absence of prosecution sanction should entitle the accused to default bail.

 

 

 

 

The court, however, held that filing of the chargesheet within the statutory period rules out the possibility of default bail and that no substantial change in circumstances had emerged since the earlier rejection of bail. The judge noted that questions relating to sanction and the merits of the allegations would be examined at the stage of framing of charges, not at this interim stage.

 

 

 

 

The prosecution strongly opposed bail, pointing to the seriousness of the allegations, breach of public trust by uniformed personnel, and the potential for influencing witnesses if the accused were released.

The court concluded that the accused had not made out a case for bail at this stage and dismissed both bail applications, allowing the matter to proceed to the next phase of judicial scrutiny.