‘Evidence Points Towards Complicity’: No Bail for J&K Policemen Held By CBI For ‘Custodial Torture'
Srinagar: A court has rejected the bail plea of a deputy superintendent of Jammu and Kashmir police and seven other policemen who were arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation in August in connection with the custodial torture of a policeman in 2023.
“The systematic nature of assaults and failure to prevent abuse by supervisory officers prima facie point towards complicity,” the court of chief judicial magistrate (Srinagar) Aadil Mushtaq Ahmad ruled in its order on October 4, while finding the bail applications “devoid of merit”.
The court observed that the evidence collected by the CBI points towards “a case of custodial torture and illegal confinement … by police personnel (which) not only violates fundamental rights but erodes public trust in the rule of law.”
“The gravity of these allegations, supported by prima facie evidence, weighs strongly against the grant of bail at this stage,” the court ruled.
Court had announced compensation for brutal torture
Deputy superintendent of police Aijaz Ahmad Naik and police personnel Riyaz Ahmad Mir, Tanveer Ahmad Malla, Altaf Hussain Bhat, Mohammad Younis Khan, Shakir Hussain Khoja, Shahnawaz Ahmad Deedad and Jehangir Ahmad Beigh, all residents of north Kashmir, had sought bail through three applications citing “innocence, professional integrity, and absence of necessity for continued custody”.
The eight police personnel were arrested earlier this year in the case filed by the CBI (RC-8(S)/2025/CBI/SC.I/DELHI) on July 26, 2025 on the directions of the Supreme Court on July 21 for allegedly torturing J&K Police constable Khursheed Ahmad Chowhan at joint interrogation centre in Kupwara during February 20-26, 2023.
The case was filed under sections 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 307 (attempt to murder), 323 (punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt), 326 (punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 331 (causing grievous hurt to extort a confession) and 343 (wrongful confinement for three or more days) of Indian Penal Code.
The court had also announced a compensation of Rs 50 lakh for the victim who had suffered “multiple fractures” due to the alleged torture along with “laceration on the scrotum with both testicles surgically removed, bruises on the buttocks extending to the thighs, tenderness on the palms and soles indicative of blunt trauma” particle.
A medical examination of the victim had found “vegetative particles” in his rectum.
'Balance between liberty of accused and societal interest'
The counsels of the accused, citing service records, commendations and awards received by some of the accused during their service in police force, had argued that the investigation of the case was “largely complete” and keeping them in custody was a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.
The defence had said that invoking section 307 was “wholly unsustainable” as the medical evidence had “merely shown grievous hurt and not injuries inflicted with intention to cause death”.
However, the prosecution opposed the bail citing the “seriousness of offences, supervisory and direct complicity of the accused, risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, ongoing investigation, and the larger public interest”.
It said that granting bail to the accused would “undermine the rule of law and erode public confidence in accountability of law enforcement personnel”.
The special public prosecutor for CBI, while opposing the applications, argued that the case was “one of custodial torture resulting in mutilation of genitalia, fractures and multiple grievous injuries, fully supported by medical and forensic evidence”.
After hearing the prosecution and defence, the Srinagar court observed that the “balance between liberty of accused and societal interest leans heavily in favour of protecting the integrity of investigation and ensuring accountability in custodial violence”.
“In view of the cumulative material on record, the Court is of the considered opinion that none of the three applications disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting departure from the settled principle that bail is not to be granted in serious custodial violence cases at the investigative stage.”
It added: “The applicants' reliance on Article 21 of the Constitution is duly considered. However, personal liberty, though fundamental, is not absolute and must yield to the imperatives of justice, particularly where release may prejudice investigation or undermine societal confidence”.
The court observed that the case “projects a chain of events involving unlawful custody, systematic torture, and grievous injuries” inflicted upon the victim whose detention in 2023 was “neither lawful nor procedurally justified”.
IPC section 307
The court said that the victim “was deprived of freedom and subjected to continuous coercive measures aimed at eliciting confessions or information” and the conduct of the accused police personnel “violated fundamental rights and legal safeguards”.
“CCTV footage depicts the victim in impaired physical condition. Medical evidence from SKIMS Soura, GMC Barzulla and the Multi-Institutional Medical Board corroborates custodial violence. Witnesses and co-detainees confirm the role of the accused,” the court said, observing that the supervisory role of the deputy superintendent of police, the “command position” of constable Riyaz Ahmad and active participation of six other accused police personnel “are reflected in the material on record”.
The case had made a turnaround when Chowhan’s medical examination report, conducted after the alleged torture, was obtained by his family through a Right to Information Act (RTI) query filed by his wife which showed the extent on injuries suffered by him.
The court ruled that the argument of the accused that 307 IPC was inapplicable “cannot by itself justify release on bail when the investigation is at a crucial stage and there remains a risk of tampering with evidence and influencing witnesses, particularly when the accused persons are police officials themselves”.
“The contention of the applicants that Section 307 IPC is not made out is, therefore, a matter of defence which cannot be conclusively adjudicated at the bail stage. Once prima facie material exists to indicate culmination of the torture resulting in grievous bodily injuries, including mutilation of the genitalia, fractures, extensive bruising, and other trauma, the Court is bound to consider the gravity of the accusation and societal interest,” the court observed.
This article went live on October sixth, two thousand twenty five, at thirty minutes past one in the afternoon.The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
