LAWS(J&K)-2000-2-4

G H MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

Decided On February 22, 2000
GH.MOHAMMAD KHAN Appellant
V/S
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER :- Ghulam Mohammad Khan moved this petition u/S. 491, Cr. P.C. to secure liberty of his son Mohd. Ashraf Khan on allegation that he was arrested on 9-2-1991 from his home at Batmaloo, Srinagar by Security Forces who continued him under illegal detention all along. Petitioner pursuant to communication of SSP, CID, CI-Kashmir (Annexure P-1) visited JIC Jammu but failed to locate Mohd. Ashraf there. He visited District Jail, Coimbtore (Tamil Nadu) but was disappointed not to find him there too. He also visited Kotbalwal Jail Jammu, JIC, Srinagar and Airport (Gogoland) Interrogation Centre at Srinagar but failed to trace him. Hence writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce his son Mohd. Ashraf Khan in Court and show law and authority in the matter.

(2.) The respondents filed the objections/counter. The then Additional Chief Secretary Govt. of J. and K. (In-charge Home Department) as also Addl. SP, CID, CI-Srinagar filed affidavits to refute that the said Mohd. Ashraf Khan was ever arrested by the State or its agencies. The alleged arrest and custody of Mohd. Ashraf Khan is unequivocally refuted and denied by the State Govt. Regarding the communication Annexure-P1, heavily relied on by petitioner, to show that Mohd. Ashraf Khan was lodged in JIC Jammu, it is stated that the matter has gone in routine on typed proforma at the behest of petitioner. It is not an admission on the part of State and its functionaries of having taken Mohd. Ashraf Khan in custody. Petitioner in his rejoinder has reiterated the position as in the Habeas Corpus petition. He has further alleged that Mohd. Ashraj Khan was arrested on 9-2-1991 by B.S.F. with his lodgment in JIC-Jammu as evidenced by Annexure-P1, the communication of the then Additional DIG Police CID, CI-Kashmir. The issuance of this letter (Annexure P-1) in routine is denied.

(3.) This Court on 3-12-1996 after examining the case and on hearing the parties passed the following order :-