In a significant legal development, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by Mian Abdul Qayoom, former President of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Bar Association. Qayoom challenged his arrest in connection with the murder of Advocate Syed Babar Qadri, asserting violations of constitutional and procedural safeguards. The court, however, upheld the legality of his detention, emphasizing adherence to due process and the provision of arrest grounds.
Background of the Case
Advocate Syed Babar Qadri was assassinated at his residence in Srinagar on September 24, 2020, by unidentified assailants. The incident led to the registration of First Information Report (FIR) No. 62/2020 under Sections 307 (attempt to murder), later escalated to Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), along with Section 7/27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Initially, the investigation culminated in a charge sheet against six individuals, excluding Qayoom. However, in 2022, the State Investigation Agency (SIA) constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) to delve deeper into the case, leading to Qayoom's arrest on June 25, 2024.
Petitioner's Contentions
Represented by Advocate Sakal Bhushan, Qayoom contended that his arrest was unlawful, citing non-compliance with Section 41A(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) and Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution. He argued that the grounds for his arrest were vague and did not meet the specificity required by law, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Prabir Purkayastha v. State. Additionally, Qayoom challenged the remand orders, alleging they lacked judicial application of mind and were mechanically endorsed by the Special Judge (National Investigation Agency, NIA).
Respondent's Defense
Senior Additional Advocate General Mohsin Qadri, representing the Union Territory, defended the arrest, asserting that the writ petition challenging judicial remand orders was legally untenable. He maintained that due process was followed, and Qayoom was duly informed of the grounds of his arrest in compliance with Section 43B(1) of the UAPA. Qadri further argued that substantial evidence linked Qayoom to a conspiracy with proscribed terrorist organizations to assassinate Advocate Qadri, justifying his detention.
Court's Analysis and Findings
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul presided over the matter, meticulously examining the procedural aspects of the arrest and subsequent remand. The court noted that Qayoom had been provided with the grounds of his arrest in writing, a fact corroborated by the petitioner's own submission of the arrest grounds as evidence. This was further substantiated by the initial remand order dated June 26, 2024, which explicitly recorded the communication of arrest grounds to the petitioner.
Addressing the allegation of vagueness, the court held that the grounds of arrest were sufficiently detailed to inform Qayoom of the accusations, thereby enabling him to mount an effective defense. The court referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Prabir Purkayastha, emphasizing that while procedural irregularities in arrest are concerning, they do not automatically invalidate remand orders unless there is a substantial violation of constitutional safeguards.
Regarding compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C., which mandates the issuance of a notice of appearance before arrest, the court observed that multiple notices had been served to Qayoom. Despite his compliance in appearing, the arresting authority recorded specific reasons necessitating his detention, aligning with the legal standards set forth in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation. These precedents underscore the requirement for law enforcement to document compelling reasons for arrest, particularly when an individual has adhered to appearance notices.
The court also scrutinized the remand orders issued by the Special Judge (NIA), countering the petitioner's claim of mechanical endorsement. Justice Koul highlighted that the remand orders contained detailed reasoning, reflecting a judicious application of mind. This demonstrated that the Special Judge had independently assessed the necessity of Qayoom's continued detention, thereby fulfilling the mandate for judicial scrutiny in remand proceedings.
Conclusion
In light of the comprehensive evaluation of procedural adherence and the substantive grounds for arrest, the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court dismissed Mian Abdul Qayoom's habeas corpus petition. The court affirmed that the arrest and subsequent detention were conducted in accordance with legal and constitutional requirements, ensuring that Qayoom was informed of the specific allegations against him and was afforded the opportunity to challenge them effectively.
This ruling underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding due process while balancing individual rights against the imperatives of law enforcement in cases involving serious offenses. It also highlights the necessity for meticulous compliance with procedural safeguards by authorities to withstand judicial scrutiny in matters of personal liberty.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.