New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday declined to order the premature release of Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, a convict in a triple murder case allegedly linked to a terrorist act.
A bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti, however, allowed Bhat to challenge the remission policy of Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir by filing an application in another pending case.
The bench heard Bhat’s plea for early release on the ground that he had served 27 years in prison.
While senior advocate Colin Gonsalves appeared for Bhat, additional solicitor general K M Nataraj represented the union territory.
Bhat allegedly entered the residence of an Army informer and opened fire with an AK-47 rifle, killing three persons.
Explosive devices, including a Under Barrel Grenade Launcher (UBGL) grenade, were also reportedly recovered from the scene, the prosecution alleged.
Nataraj submitted that killing civilians for allegedly providing information to the Army amounted to a terrorist act and therefore Bhat was disentitled from availing benefits of premature release.
“The act was intended to create fear and deter cooperation with lawful authorities. This goes beyond a simple murder,” he said.
Agreeing with the contention, the bench said “if the act was committed to create fear, to ensure that no one dares to side with the law, then it certainly carries the characteristics of a terrorist act.”
The top court continued, “Even if TADA was not invoked during trial, that doesn’t automatically disentitle the court from assessing the true nature of the offence for the purposes of remission.”
Gonsalves, however, argued Bhat was convicted only under Section 302 IPC (murder) and the Arms Act, and not under any anti-terror legislation TADA.
“Nothing was proved in court to attract the provisions of TADA. The trial court or the high court never found it to be a terrorist act,” he said, citing precedents of similarly-situated convicts who were granted premature release.
The bench remained unconvinced and added, “We tentatively agree that the act appears aimed at sending a message that those who cooperate with authorities will face lethal consequences. We cannot turn a blind eye to such implications.”
When the counsel for Bhat referred to other premature release cases, the bench noted the absence of a comparable remission policy.
“We don’t have the remission policy before us. Without it, how can we draw analogies?” it asked.
Gonsalves then sought liberty to challenge the J&K remission policy within the ongoing proceedings.
The bench allowed him to file an interim plea in a pending matter challenging the same policy.
