The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has strongly criticised the handling of a 2019 terror and arms-smuggling case, after finding that the original First Information Report (FIR) was missing from the trial records.
Observing that the submission of unreadable digital documents was “nothing but contemptuous to say the least”, Justice Rahul Bharti expressed concern over what he called serious procedural lapses that could affect the fairness of the trial.
Missing FIR Raises Questions Over Criminal Trial Integrity
The case came to light during the hearing of a bail plea filed by truck driver Sabeel Ahmad Baba, who has been in custody since September 2019. He is one of six accused in a case involving the alleged recovery of weapons from a truck intercepted at Lakhanpur.
According to the prosecution, the search led to the recovery of four AK-56 rifles, two AK-47 rifles, and multiple loaded magazines.
However, the court noted that the original FIR (No. 0061/2019) was not included in the final chargesheet, raising doubts about the completeness of the prosecution record.
Justice Bharti warned that this omission has “the potential of serious deficiency attending the very criminal prosecution of the accused person”.
Timeline Anomaly Adds to Court’s Concern
The High Court had earlier pointed out a major inconsistency in the prosecution timeline. It observed that the FIR was registered at 8:30 AM on September 12, 2019, while the alleged interception and recovery of arms reportedly took place later at 9:45 AM the same day.
The court has sought clarification on this contradiction while examining the integrity of the investigation.
Trial Court and Prosecution Under Scrutiny
The court also criticised the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge (designated NIA court), Jammu, for failing to notice the missing FIR when the chargesheet was first accepted in March 2020.
Justice Bharti noted that there was no mention of the missing FIR in the initial judicial order and termed this as a serious lapse in judicial oversight.
He further expressed surprise that even the prosecution did not flag the absence of such a “crucial document” during trial proceedings.
COVID Delay and Substituted FIR Copy
Court records show that the original FIR was reportedly sent to the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kathua. However, due to COVID-19 disruptions, follow-up action could not be completed.
Later, instead of retrieving the original document, the trial court accepted a copy of the FIR provided by the prosecution department and placed it on record.
Poor Digital Records Also Criticised
The High Court also objected to the poor quality of scanned records submitted by the lower court, describing them as largely illegible.
Justice Bharti directed officials to explain the lapse and called for proper clarification on how the electronic case records were prepared and transmitted.
Court Orders Detailed Report and Further Hearing
The High Court has directed the Registrar Judicial to seek an explanation from the trial court and asked senior state law officers to report on the whereabouts of the original FIR.
The matter will now be taken up again on July 3, 2026, as the court continues to examine procedural irregularities that may have impacted the criminal trial.
