J&K Court Rejects Bail Of Eight Police Personnel Accused Of Custodial Torture Of Constable
The Principal District & Sessions Judge, Kupwara has dismissed the bail applications of eight police personnel accused of illegally detaining and torturing a constable at the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC) Kupwara. The Court held that the applicants had failed to demonstrate any legal or factual basis warranting their release and emphasised that the stage of proceedings did not permit examination of the evidentiary merits.
The order, passed by Principal Sessions Judge Manjeet Singh Manhas, dealt with separate bail pleas filed by DySP Aijaz Ahmad Naik and seven co-accused officials. The Court concluded that the applications were “devoid of merit,” observing that it would be “premature to delve into the merits or demerits of the case” before arguments on charge are heard.
Background of the Case
The case stems from an FIR registered by the CBI on 26 July 2025 pursuant to directions issued by the Supreme Court of India. The complainant, Rubeena Akhter, alleged that her husband, Constable Khursheed Ahmed Chowhan, had been wrongfully confined between 20 and 26 February 2023 and subjected to custodial torture at JIC Kupwara during a narcotics-related inquiry.
Taking note of the gravity of these allegations particularly the claimed breach of fundamental rights the Supreme Court ordered a CBI investigation. The subsequent probe resulted in a chargesheet naming eight personnel posted at JIC Kupwara at the relevant time, ranging from a Deputy Superintendent of Police to lower ranking officials.
The prosecution relied on medical examinations, CFSL analysis, and CCTV footage from 26 February 2023. The footage shows the victim “limping with restricted movement,” a detail the CBI placed before the Court as corroborative of the custodial violence allegations. Medical evidence indicated injuries consistent with physical assault, while forensic findings allegedly matched the victim's samples. The accused officers, however, maintained their innocence, characterising the allegations as vague, unsubstantiated, and motivated.
Court's Observations
While considering the bail pleas, the Court first addressed the defence argument that the applicants were entitled to default bail due to absence of sanction under Section 218 BNSS. The judge rejected this outright, noting that “once the challan is presented before the competent court within the statutory period, the question of default bail does not arise at all.” The Court clarified that any legal consequence of pending sanction would be examined at the charge/discharge stage.
The applicants' claim of a “change in circumstances” on account of the dropping of Sections 307 and 326 IPC also failed to impress the Court. The judge observed that the matter had only recently been committed to the Sessions Court and arguments on charge had not yet begun. As the Court put it, the applicants “today stand on the same pedestal” as when their earlier bail plea had been rejected by the Chief Judicial Magistrate.
Emphasising procedural propriety, the judge reiterated that it would be “premature to delve into the merits” before the Court had the opportunity to hear comprehensive submissions on charge. Questions relating to the strength of evidence, the effect of sanction, or the specific role of each accused were matters for a later procedural stage, the court reasoned and dismissed the plea.
Case Title: UT Of J&K Through CBI Vs Aijaz Ahmad Naik & Ors