Srinagar: Observing that the presentation of unreadable digital records was “nothing but contemptuous to say the least”, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has flagged the absence of the original First Information Report (FIR) from a 2019 terror and arms-smuggling trial record.
A single bench of Justice Rahul Bharti warned that the missing vital document has the “potential of serious deficiency attending the very criminal prosecution of the accused person” and has sought an urgent explanation from the designated NIA trial court.
The development comes during the hearing of a bail application filed by truck driver Sabeel Ahmad Baba, who has remained in custody since September 2019. Baba is one of six accused named in the FIR after a truck bearing registration number JK13E-2000, allegedly driven by him, was intercepted at Lakhanpur. The prosecution claims the search resulted in the recovery of a large cache of arms, including four AK-56 rifles, two AK-47 rifles, and six loaded magazines.
In a previous hearing last month, the High Court had noted a significant chronological anomaly in the case file, observing that FIR No. 0061/2019 of Police Station Lakhanpur was registered at 8:30 AM on September 12, 2019, whereas the actual interception of the vehicle and the subsequent recovery of arms took place 75 minutes later, at 9:45 AM.
While scrutinizing the records to verify this timeline, the High Court discovered that the original FIR was completely missing from the final police report, or challan. Justice Bharti noted that there is no dispute to the fact that when the final police report was presented by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Kamal Dev Bhagat, “FIR No. 0061/2019 dated 12.09.2019 be it in its original form or any other form as a carbon copy or duplicate copy ever accompanied the said challan”.
In its latest order, the High Court pulled up the trial court, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Designated Court under Section 22 of the NIA Act), Jammu, for failing to notice the omission when it initially accepted the prosecution’s chargesheet.
Justice Rahul Bharti observed that “casualness on the part of the court of the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu is to the fact that in its very first order dated 09.03.2020 directing the office report on the presentation of challan, there is no whisper made as to the fact that the police report/challan No. 18/2020 dated 08.03.2020 is not being accompanied with original FIR No. 0061/2019 or its duplicate copy”.
According to a status report subsequently submitted by the trial court, the original FIR had been forwarded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM), Kathua. Although the designated NIA court requested a copy from the CJM Kathua on March 10, 2020, to place it on record, the scheduled proceedings could not take place due to the sudden imposition of Covid-19 lockdown restrictions.
The High Court noted that when the case file was eventually taken up again on April 22, 2020, it was “with no follow up action or order from the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu with respect to the production of the FIR as solicited from the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua”. Instead of retrieving the original document, the trial court later accepted a copy of the FIR obtained from the prosecution department to annex with its report.
The High Court also turned its attention to the state’s legal representatives for failing to notice the missing document during the trial. Justice Bharti recorded that “this Court is surprised at its own end that even Additional Public Prosecutor prosecuting the challan has not bothered himself on this aspect of missing FIR from the police challan which is going to be a very crucial aspect having the potential of serious deficiency attending the very criminal prosecution of the accused person in the case”.
The High Court’s dissatisfaction was further amplified by the poor quality of the electronic records transmitted by the lower court, noting that the first page of the electronic challan was so badly misprinted that it was entirely illegible except for a few handwritten lines.
Directing the Registrar Judicial to seek a formal explanation, Justice Bharti stated that “the manner in which scanned record has been submitted by the court of learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (Designated Court under Section 22 of NIA Act), Jammu to this Court is nothing but contemptuous to say the least”.
To address these procedural lapses, the High Court directed Senior Additional Advocate General Monika Kohli to report on the exact status and whereabouts of the missing original FIR by the next date of hearing. Simultaneously, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu, has been ordered to submit a report clarifying the specific source from whom the substitute copy of the FIR was procured.
The court took on record a chronology of the prosecution witnesses examined so far, which was submitted by the petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Shivan Mahajan, and dispensed with the personal appearance of Deputy Superintendent of Police Kamal Dev Bhagat. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 3, 2026. (KDC)
