 Early Times Report
Jammu, Dec 5: In a stinging indictment of the police investigation in a 15-year-old UAPA case, the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (Designated Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act) Madan Lal, returned the final report of FIR No. 169/2010 of Police Station Gandhi Nagar and directed a fresh, closely monitored investigation, observing that the closure of the case on the ground of “not admitted” was based on “vague” and “lame excuses” reflecting gross negligence.
The case, registered under Section 13(1) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, stems from an alleged incident on October 8, 2010, when a police docket claimed that a group of 20-30 youths led by named individuals assembled outside Jammu University’s main gate, carrying posters and banners and raising slogans advocating separation and demanding “freedom.” The police record alleged that provocative speeches were delivered that threatened the unity and sovereignty of the country, leading to registration of the FIR.
However, after a long chain of investigating officers over the years, the last IO closed the case, stating that the accused had not disclosed any beneficial point regarding the occurrence, that slogans threatening unity and integrity were not raised, that banners were not recovered from the accused but from the road, that no video evidence was available, and that civil witnesses were not examined. The final report went to the extent of suggesting that banners were prepared from a computer shop and not recovered from the possession of accused, thereby indicating serious gaps in the investigation. Names of four accused — Babar Hussain, Mohd Saleem, Shehjad (Jammu University) and Mohd Shafiq — were deleted for want of evidence.
The UT prosecution opposed the closure. The court, after hearing the Additional Public Prosecutor Manmohit Kumar Sharma, found the reasons furnished by the IO unsustainable and held that the investigation had been mishandled at multiple levels.
In a sharply worded order, the court observed that apprehension of other accused and associates should not have been difficult when some of the accused were named and arrested during the investigation. The court further noted that the acts attributed to the accused — carrying posters and banners, raising anti-national slogans and delivering provocative speeches demanding secession — prima facie constituted criminal acts punishable under the IPC and UAPA, and that sufficient oral and documentary evidence was available and even reflected in the FIR itself.
Calling out the investigative lapses, the court said the grounds cited by the last IO showcased negligence amounting to service misconduct punishable under the service conduct rules. The court particularly questioned why banners were allegedly seized from the road rather than from the accused and underscored that lack of video recording is not fatal where other evidence exists. The court also faulted the IOs for not properly recording statements, failing to complete necessary procedural steps and not addressing defects earlier pointed out by the Police Headquarters.
Terming the case sensitive and linked to “anti-national ideology” with a “secession and independence agenda,” the court expressed concern that multiple investigating officers of the rank of Dy SP had allegedly let off the accused on unjustified grounds, thereby compromising the security, unity, integrity and sovereignty of India.
Consequently, the court ordered that the final report be returned to the office of the IGP Jammu Zone with directions to appoint a competent and credible officer to reinvestigate the case, personally monitor the investigation, and submit fortnightly progress reports. The court also directed an inquiry into why a case that could have been challaned with proper investigation was closed on what it described as weak and vague reasoning, and asked the police to identify officers who failed to rectify PHQ-pointed defects and proceed against them under law.
The matter has been listed for progress review on December 24, 2025. Copies of the order have also been directed to be sent to the Director General of Police, J&K for information. (JNF) |
