Srinagar, Sep 24, KDC: The Additional Sessions Court, Srinagar, has rejected the anticipatory bail plea of the son and daughter of Hashim Qureshi in connection with a case registered at Police Station Nishat, observing that their custodial interrogation was required for a fair and effective investigation.
The order, according to news agency Kashmir Dot Com, was passed by Additional Sessions Judge Farooq Ahmad Bhat on a petition filed by Abrar Qureshi, son of Mohammad Hashim Qureshi, and Laila Qureshi, daughter of Mohammad Hashim Qureshi, in connection with FIR No. 84/2026 registered at Police Station Nishat.
The case has been registered under Sections 74, 324(2), 305, 331(4), 351(1), 221 and 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
According to the police report cited in the court order, Police Station Nishat received a written complaint on August 31 from Gousai Nabi, wife of Junaid Ahmad Qureshi, a resident of Guft Ganga, Ishber, Srinagar.
The complainant alleged that she was forcibly dragged out of her house and molested by Abrar Qureshi, Laila Qureshi and Tariq Ahmad Mir. She also alleged that the accused damaged or broke CCTV cameras installed at the house and took away belongings from the premises.
Following the complaint, police registered the FIR and initiated an investigation. The place of occurrence was inspected, a site plan was prepared and statements of witnesses acquainted with the circumstances of the case were recorded through the e-Sakshya App, the court was informed.
The police report stated that the allegations against Laila Qureshi, Abrar Ahmad Qureshi and Tariq Ahmad Mir were found to be substantiated during the course of investigation. Notices under Section 35(3) of the BNSS were subsequently served upon the three accused.
The court was further informed that Laila Qureshi and Tariq Ahmad Mir appeared before Police Station Nishat and furnished their bail bonds. However, police alleged that Abrar Qureshi did not appear before the police station, did not cooperate with the investigating officer and failed to furnish the requisite bail bonds.
According to the investigating agency, further interrogation of the accused was required for the recovery, identification and verification of material and evidence connected with the alleged occurrence.
Police also alleged that access to the interior portion of the complainant’s house, considered relevant for further investigation and verification, had been obstructed by the accused party.
The investigating agency expressed apprehension that continued protection from arrest could result in the accused influencing or intimidating material witnesses or interfering with evidence. It consequently sought cancellation or recall of the anticipatory bail protection.
The court examined the plea in light of Supreme Court judgments governing anticipatory bail, including the Constitution Bench judgment in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs State (NCT of Delhi) and another.
The court noted that while anticipatory bail is intended to protect individual liberty, its grant depends on factors including the nature and gravity of the alleged offences, the role attributed to the accused, the possibility of influencing the investigation or tampering with evidence, and the likelihood of fleeing from justice.
Referring to the material placed before it, the court said the allegations in the present case were not trivial and related to alleged criminal force against a woman with intent to outrage her modesty, mischief, theft in a dwelling house, house trespass, criminal intimidation and voluntarily causing hurt.
The court further recorded that the investigation was still underway and that the investigating officer had submitted that the accused were not cooperating with the investigation.
The court observed that the investigating officer’s statement regarding the requirement of custodial interrogation was significant, particularly in view of the pending investigative steps and the need to determine the role of the accused and ascertain whether any other persons were involved.
“Granting anticipatory bail at this crucial stage would undoubtedly impede the free and fair investigation and may adversely affect the collection of evidence,” the court observed.
The court also considered the conduct of the accused during the investigation. It noted that although their counsel claimed that the accused had cooperated with the investigating agency, the investigating officer submitted that they had failed to appear before him despite repeated directions.
The court held that such conduct could not be treated as complete cooperation when the investigation required disclosure of material facts and examination of evidence.
It further observed that custodial interrogation could be more effective for the investigating agency, particularly where recovery and other investigative steps remained pending.
The court also recorded that the allegations disclosed what it described as an alleged pre-planned conspiracy and said the investigating agency should be allowed to conduct an unhindered investigation, reported news agency Kashmir Dot Com.
After considering the nature and gravity of the allegations, the stage of investigation and the requirement of custodial interrogation, the court concluded that no exceptional circumstance had been made out for granting anticipatory bail under Section 482 of the BNSS.
The court accordingly dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by Abrar Qureshi and Laila Qureshi and directed that any interim protection operating in their favour would stand vacated forthwith.
The court, however, clarified that its observations were confined to the adjudication of the anticipatory bail petition and should not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case during trial.
The investigating agency was directed to proceed strictly in accordance with law and remain uninfluenced by the observations made in the order. A copy of the order was also directed to be forwarded to the SHO of Police Station Nishat for information and compliance. (KDC)
