Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 67 (JK)

Peer Noor-ul-Haq v. State

2002-03-16

SYED BASHIR-UD-DIN

body2002
Petitioner has prayed for security cover in view of threat to his life at the hands of respondents NO. 4, the then SDPO Hazratbal, Srinagar and action under law against said SDPO Abdul Rashid Khan in the back drop of following pleaded facts and circumstances. 2. Petitioner alleges that his minor son Naseer Ullah Noor, a school going boy was sexually assaulted by one Javid Ahmed Bhat on 30.5.1999, as result of which the boy sustained injuries and FIR was registered at Police Division Harwan. The said accused Javid Ahmed Bhat was arrested. During investigations bail application was moved on behalf of the said Javid Ahmed Bhat accused before CJM, Srinagar and petitioner resisted the bail and sought cancellation of the bail (Annexure P-2). The said SDPO Abdul Rashid Khan respondent No. 4 pressurised petitioner not to resist the bail. When petitioner failed to oblige him he while coming out of the court after attending the bail proceedings on 19.6.99, was whisked away in a waiting police vehicle and subjected to severe torture after having been illegally confined till 28th June, 1999 inter-alia in Police Lock-up Soura. During his confinement in P/s Soura, three young boys were brought and detained in P/S Soura. One boy was killed in P/S and other two boys were removed from cell and tortured to death. The bodies of all three young boys were subsequently discovered at some distance from P/S. The Govt. through State Home Minister launched an enquiry through Crime Branch. He appeared as a witness before the crime branch and his preliminary statement was also recorded. He was and is being threatened by respondent No. 4 of dire consequences if he give evidence against him in the matter. He was released only after his relatives moved the court and did their bit to secure petitioners release. Petitioner approached Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission while taking proceedings on his complaint also directed the Govt. to provide security to him and also put respondent No. 4 under directions not to cause any harm or harassment to petitioner. Despite directions and petitioners attempt to approach the authorities, he is not being provided any security cover and has real threat to his life. The legal proceedings merited to be initiated against respondent No. 4 are not being taken. 3. Mr. M. I. Qadiri, Sr. AAG has filed reply on behalf of the State. Despite directions and petitioners attempt to approach the authorities, he is not being provided any security cover and has real threat to his life. The legal proceedings merited to be initiated against respondent No. 4 are not being taken. 3. Mr. M. I. Qadiri, Sr. AAG has filed reply on behalf of the State. It is averred that the respondent No. 4 is under suspension and is facing criminal charges. After hearing from the Human Rights Commission petitioner has been already given security cover but as the whereabouts of the petitioner are not known therefore the security cover could not be provided. The above factual back-ground and incriminating circumstances and adverse facts as pleaded in the petition are not controverted. In fact respondents have vaguely replied the averments and taken refuge under the platives like `want of knowledge "matter of record" need not reply etc. Even so petitioner approached Human Rights Commission and the direction of Human Rights Commission to provide security cover is not denied. It is pleaded that against respondent No. 4 a case of murder is registered and a final report under section 173 Cr. P.C. has been produced in court of competent jurisdiction. Respondent No. 4 is absconding and his whereabouts are not known and also he is placed under suspension and is proceeded against under law. Admit. 4. Upon hearing the counsel for the parties this matter is taken up for final disposal, on consensual submissions of the counsel for the parties. 5. Mr. Qadiri in terms of the reply affidavit on record and submissions made before court solicits that the respondents/competent authority has been/is prepared to provide security cover to petitioner as per the norms/guide-lines applicable to this case. In fact after hearing from Human Rights Commission and pursuant to interim directions of this court, petitioner was provided a PSO but since petitioners whereabouts were not known and he was not found on the address given in the petition, therefore security cover could not put in place. In case particulars of petitioners abode/residence are supplied the State Govt. is prepared even at this stage to provid him the assessed security as per the norms and facts and circumstances applicable to petitioners case. At this stage Mr. S. R. Khawar Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would supply Mr. In case particulars of petitioners abode/residence are supplied the State Govt. is prepared even at this stage to provid him the assessed security as per the norms and facts and circumstances applicable to petitioners case. At this stage Mr. S. R. Khawar Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would supply Mr. Qadiri full whereabouts and residential particulars of petitioner within one week, for being provided the security cover. It is accordingly directed that after full particulars regarding abode/residence of petitioner are provided to Mr. Qadiri the petitioner shall be provided security cover may be PSO or otherwise as per the norms and standard laid down thereto, after assessing the security requirements of the petitioner and his concern of his own safety in the objective, fair and reasonable manner within a period of two weeks. Respondents No. 4 is already facing a murder charge and has been also placed under suspension. He is presently absconding and his whereabouts are not known to the authorities of State Govt. However, petitioner is not barred to launch proceedings under law against respondent No. 4, even if the Govt. has employer and its officer (s) has not moved to take action against him in the matter of wrongful confinement and torture of petitioner from June 19th, 1999 to 28th June, 1999. When petitioner was with respondent No. 4. Petitioner has alternative remedies before the appropriate forums. He can avail the remedies and proceed against respondent No. 4, if he so desire. 6. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Registry to take follow up action.