"Informed Of Grounds Of Arrest”: J&K High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea By Ex-Bar President Mian Qayoom Against Arrest In Murder Case

The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court, on Wednesday dismissed the habeas corpus petition filed by former Bar President Mian Abdul Qayoom, challenging his arrest in the high-profile murder case of Advocate Syed Babar Qadri. The court emphasized that the petitioner had been informed of the grounds of his arrest, affirming the procedural compliance by the authorities.While Junking the petition Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul recorded, “.. there is no denial to the fact that the petitioner has been informed of the grounds of arrest in writing and it is the petitioner, who has himself placed on record copy of the grounds of arrest. Besides, providing of grounds of arrest is also evident from the first remand order of the court below. Therefore, writ petition insofar as it throws challenge to his arrest or to the grounds of arrest is liable to be dismissed”The case arose from the assassination of Advocate Syed Babar Qadri, who was gunned down by unidentified terrorists at his residence in Srinagar on September 24, 2020. The killing led to the registration of FIR No. 62/2020 under Sections 307 (later converted to 302) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Section 7/27 of the Arms Act, and Sections 16 and 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The investigation initially resulted in a charge sheet against six accused, excluding Qayoom. However, a subsequent Special Investigation Team (SIT) constituted by the State Investigation Agency (SIA) in 2022 initiated further investigation, leading to Qayoom's arrest on June 25, 2024.Assailing his detention Advocate Sakal Bhushan, representing Qayoom, contended that the arrest was illegal, primarily due to the non-compliance with Section 41A(3) Cr.P.C. and Article 22(1) of the Constitution. He argued that the grounds of arrest provided were vague and did not meet the standards set by the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha v. State. Furthermore, the remand orders lacked judicial application of mind and were a result of mechanical endorsement by the Special Judge (NIA), he submitted. Defending the arrest, Senior Additional Advocate General Mr. Mohsin Qadri argued that the writ petition challenging the judicial remand orders was not maintainable under the law. Maintaining that arrest followed due process and Qayoom was informed of the grounds of arrest in compliance with Section 43B(1) of UAPA Mr Qadri argued that the petitioner's involvement in a conspiracy with proscribed terrorist outfits to assassinate Advocate Qadri was established through substantial evidence.Vehemently seeking the dismissal of the petitioner Mr Qadri had submitted, “.. for all those years the petitioner has remained as the President, Bar Association. He has only propagated for breaking of J&K from the Union of India and also encouraged armed uprising in J&K against India. He being President of Bar Association ought to have alleviated the issues of young lawyers rather than to brainwash them for his separatist goals, which is common knowledge”After considering the rival contentions Justice Koul observed that the grounds of arrest were provided to the petitioner as recorded in the first remand order dated June 26, 2024 as he rejected the argument that the grounds were not furnished at the time of arrest, noting that the Special Judge (NIA) had ensured compliance during the remand process.Referring to the Supreme Court's precedents, including Prabir Purkayastha and Madhu Limaye, the court reiterated that procedural irregularities in arrest do not automatically vitiate remand orders unless a substantial violation of constitutional safeguards is established.Spotlighting the compliance with Section 41A Cr.P.C in the instant case the court analyzed the issuance of multiple notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C. and observed that while Qayoom complied with these notices, his arrest was justified by the reasons recorded in the arrest memorandum. The court referred to the Supreme Court's rulings in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar and Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, which mandate that reasons for arrest must be recorded, especially when an accused complies with appearance notices.Addressing the petitioner's challenge to the remand orders, the court highlighted the principle that judicial officers must exercise independent scrutiny before granting remand. The court found that the Special Judge (NIA) had not acted mechanically but had applied judicial mind, as evidenced by the detailed remand orders reflecting the reasons for Qayoom's continued custody.Commenting on the petitioner's alleged Non-Cooperation the court noted that despite being served notices under Section 41A Cr.P.C., the petitioner was found to be evasive and non-cooperative during the investigation. The SIT had gathered significant evidence linking Qayoom to the conspiracy behind Advocate Qadri's murder, justifying his custodial interrogation, the court maintained. Dismissing the petitioner's argument that the grounds of arrest were generic and ...

"Informed Of Grounds Of Arrest”: J&K High Court Dismisses Habeas Corpus Plea By Ex-Bar President Mian Qayoom Against Arrest In Murder Case

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags