The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has raised serious concerns over procedural lapses in a 2019 arms recovery case from Lakhanpur, questioning how a First Information Report (FIR) was allegedly registered before the weapons were recovered.
Hearing a bail plea filed by accused Sabeel Ahmad Baba, Justice Rahul Bharti pointed to what he called a “very striking aspect” in the case timeline. According to court records, FIR No. 61/2019 at Lakhanpur police station was registered at 8:30 am on September 12, 2019, while the truck carrying the alleged weapons was intercepted later at 9:45 am the same day.
“One very striking aspect of the case, from which this Court is not able to distance itself from taking serious cognizance,” Justice Bharti observed in his order dated May 22, while referring to the sequence of events in the prosecution record.
Alleged Arms Recovery and Accused
As per the prosecution, a truck bearing registration number JK-13E/2000, allegedly driven by Sabeel Ahmad Baba, was intercepted by Lakhanpur police. Officials claimed to have recovered four AK-56 rifles, two AK-47 rifles, and six loaded magazines carrying 30 rounds each from the vehicle.
Police also detained two passengers travelling in the truck, identified as Ubaid-ul-Islam and Jahangir Ahmad Parray. During the investigation, two more individuals, Bashir Ahmad Lone and Suhail Ahmad Dar, were named as accused, while another suspect, Ashiq Ahmad Nengroo, was declared absconding.
In March 2020, police filed a chargesheet under Sections 120-B and 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code, provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and Sections 7 and 25 of the Arms Act.
Missing Original FIR Raises More Questions
The High Court also noted another major irregularity — the original FIR was missing from the trial court record.
Justice Bharti observed that although the chargesheet was filed before the Special Judge under the NIA Act in Jammu on March 9, 2020, the original FIR was not attached to the final police report.
Following earlier court directions, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu submitted a report explaining that the chargesheet had been filed at the residence of the presiding officer due to Covid-19 restrictions at the time.
The report further stated that the original FIR had initially been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Kathua and was later requested by the designated NIA court. However, the original document was never received, forcing the prosecution to provide only a copy.
Court Seeks Investigating Officer’s Appearance
Taking note of these irregularities, the High Court directed the prosecution to clarify whether the investigating officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police Kamal Dev Bhagat, is still in service or has retired.
“In case, Dy SP is still in service then let him appear in person on next date of hearing,” the court directed.
The court also asked petitioner’s counsel, Shivan Mahajan, to submit details of prosecution witnesses already examined and those yet to testify.
Sabeel Ahmad Baba and two co-accused have remained in custody since September 12, 2019, and continue to be undertrial prisoners. The matter is now scheduled for further hearing on June 5, 2026.
