'Striking Aspect': J&K&L High Court Notes FIR In Arms Recovery Case Preceded Occurrence Of Alleged Offence, Asks IO To Appear

While hearing a bail application filed by an accused who has remained in custody since September 2019, the Court found that the FIR was shown to have been registered at 8:30 a.m. on 12 September 2019, whereas the prosecution case itself records that the alleged interception of the truck and recovery of arms took place at 9:45 a.m. on the same day. The Court also found that the original FIR was not available in the trial court record and has consequently sought clarification from the investigating agency.

A Bench of Justice Rahul Bharti observed,

"... One very striking aspect of the case, from which this Court is not able to distance itself from taking serious cognizance, is the fact that the registration of FIR No. 0061 of 2019 dated 12.09.2019 by the Police Station, Lakhanpur at 8:30 am had taken place first and the alleged commission of offences took place at 9:45 am."

The High Court directed the prosecution to inform the Court whether the investigating officer, Deputy Superintendent of Police Kamal Dev Bhagat, is still in service or has superannuated. The Court further ordered that if the officer remains in service, he shall appear personally before the Court on the next date of hearing.

The Court was dealing with a bail plea filed by Sabeel Ahmad Baba, who is facing trial along with several co-accused in a case involving alleged recovery of assault rifles, magazines and ammunition from a truck intercepted by the police at Lakhanpur in September 2019. According to the prosecution, the petitioner was driving the vehicle when it was intercepted and searched by the police.

Following investigation, the police filed a final report on 8 March 2020 alleging commission of offences under Sections 120-B and 201 RPC, Sections 13, 18, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and Sections 7 and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The challan was presented before the Special Court dealing with NIA matters at Jammu on 9 March 2020.

While considering the bail application, the High Court noticed that the timing reflected in the FIR appeared inconsistent with the prosecution narrative itself. The Court recorded that the FIR was shown to have been registered at 8:30 a.m., whereas the alleged recovery of arms and interception of the vehicle were stated to have taken place more than an hour later at 9:45 a.m.

The Court further noticed another significant irregularity. It observed that the original FIR did not form part of the final police report filed before the trial court. In an earlier order dated 11 May 2026, the Court had therefore sought a report from the designated NIA court regarding the status of the original FIR.

Pursuant to those directions, a report was submitted informing the Court that the challan had been presented at the residence of the Presiding Officer because of COVID-19 restrictions then prevailing. However, the report also revealed that although the original FIR had been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua and was later called for by the designated court through an order dated 10 March 2020, the original document was never received by the trial court. Instead, a copy of the FIR was procured from the prosecution and annexed to the judicial record.

The Court also requested counsel appearing for the petitioner to furnish a detailed chronology of prosecution witnesses already examined during trial and those yet to be examined.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pending prosecution or the bail claim, the High Court has initiated a closer scrutiny of the circumstances surrounding the registration of the FIR and the absence of the original FIR from the trial court record.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on 5 June 2026.

Case Title: Sabeel Ahmad Baba v. UT of J&K &

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment