Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq assassination case
Excelsior Correspondent
JAMMU, Mar 26: In a significant development in the 1990 assassination case of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq, a special court in Jammu has rejected the bail application of accused Zahoor Ahmed Bhat, son of late Mohd Ramzan of Batmaloo and Javed Ahmad Bhat, son of Habibullah Bhatt of Solina, Srinagar holding that the plea is “premature” and fails to satisfy the stringent conditions laid down under anti-terror laws.
The order was passed by the Court of the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu Madan Lal designated under TADA/POTA and Section 22 of the NIA Act.
The case pertains to the killing of Mirwaiz Maulvi Farooq on May 21, 1990, when unidentified gunmen allegedly entered his residence at Nageen, Srinagar, and opened fire, leading to his death.
An FIR (No. 61/1990) was initially registered at Police Station Nageen under Sections 120-B and 307 RPC, along with provisions of TADA and the Arms Act. The investigation was later transferred to the CBI by the Government of India.
In 1992, the CBI filed a chargesheet against two accused, while Zahoor Ahmed Bhat and another accused were declared absconders, with further investigation kept open. One of the accused was subsequently convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment, a judgment later upheld by the Supreme Court.
The accused was arrested on May 17, 2023-over 30 years after the incident-and lodged in District Jail Amphalla, Jammu. A supplementary chargesheet was later filed against him, and charges under Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of TADA and Section 120-B read with 302 RPC were framed in January 2024.
The defence argued that no fresh evidence was discovered during further investigation by the CBI and the supplementary chargesheet relies on the same material as the 1992 chargesheet. Moreover, witnesses examined so far have not made any incriminating statement against the accused.
The CBI through Special Public Prosecutor S K Bhat opposed bail and contended that the accused played an active role in the conspiracy and execution of the assassination. The offences involve terrorism and murder, punishable with life imprisonment or death.
Rejecting the application, the court observed that under Section 20(8) of TADA, bail can only be granted if the court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and unlikely to commit any offence while on bail-conditions not fulfilled in this case.
The court noted that only a few prosecution witnesses have been examined so far (around four out of 39), and it would be premature to assess the merits of the case. The court further held that evidence recorded in the earlier trial cannot be relied upon at this stage, as the accused was not part of those proceedings.
The court also pointed out inconsistencies in the defence arguments-on one hand questioning the relevance of earlier evidence, while on the other relying on it to seek bail. Dismissing the bail plea, the court held that the accused has failed to make out a case for grant of bail at this stage, terming the application as lacking merit and “premature”.
Follow our WhatsApp channel
