 Early Times Report
Jammu, Sept 18: Special Judge NIA Act, Jammu, Sandeep Gandotra today extended the judicial remand of two accused in the Pahalgam tourist killings case, allowing the National Investigation Agency (NIA) more time to complete its probe into the April 22 massacre at Baisaran meadow, Pahalgam.
Additional Sessions Judge Sandeep Gandotra granted extension of custody for Bashir Ahmad Jothatd, son of Lal Din Jothatd of Baisaran (presently Hill Park, Pahalgam, Anantnag), and Parvaiz Ahmad, son of Ghulam Hassan Jother of Batkote, Pahalgam, beyond the statutory 90 days up to 180 days under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
The NIA re-registered the case (RC-02/2025/NIA/JMU) on April 27, 2025, arising out of FIR No. 25/2025 lodged at Police Station Pahalgam. The case pertains to the selective killing of innocent tourists of a particular community based on their religious identity at Baisaran meadow, which had sparked widespread outrage. The accused were arrested on June 22, 2025, and remained in judicial custody at District Jail Amphalla, Jammu. Their 90-day remand was set to expire on September 19, 2025.
Public Prosecutor Chandan Kumar Singh submitted that investigation is at a crucial stage, with several witness statements under Section 183 BNSS yet to be recorded. The NIA cited recovery of Pakistani phone numbers from the accused, forensic reports awaited from CFSL Chandigarh and NFSU Gandhinagar, and DNA profiling of seized blankets, shawls, and bedsheets to establish links with slain terrorists. Arms and ammunition recovered in a July 28 encounter were also under forensic analysis.
Defence counsel Ashwani Kumar opposed the extension, arguing that the accused had already been in custody for two months without conclusive evidence, and that the NIA had failed to complete investigation within the time granted.
Rejecting the defence plea, the Court noted that the allegations were grave and directly linked to national security. Citing pending forensic reports and crucial witness statements, the Court ruled that the investigation could not be completed within the statutory 90 days and allowed a 45-day extension of remand. The Judge observed that “a prima facie case is made out for extension of remand and detention of accused beyond the stipulated period,” directing the investigating officer to complete the probe expeditiously. (JNF) |
