The Supreme Court of India.
Credit: PTI File Photo
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday declined to consider a plea for premature release of Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, a life term convict in a triple murder case allegedly linked to a terrorist act.
A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S V N Bhatti, however, allowed him to challenge the remission policy of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir by filing an application in another pending case.
Bhat approached the apex court seeking early release on the ground that he had served 27 years in prison.
Bhat allegedly entered the residence of an Army informer and opened fire with an AK-47 rifle, killing three persons. Explosive devices, including an under-barrel grenade launcher, were also reportedly recovered from the scene, the prosecution alleged.
During the hearing, senior advocate Colin Gonsalves represented Bhat and Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj for the Union Territory.
Nataraj contended 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.
“This goes beyond a simple murder,” he said.
The bench observed that 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.
Opposing Nataraj’s submissions, Gonsalves argued that his client was convicted only under Section 302 IPC (murder) and the Arms Act, and not under any anti-terror legislation, Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act (TADA). Gonsalves cited precedents of similarly-situated convicts who were granted premature release. Gonsalves said nothing was proved in court to attract the provisions of TADA, and neither the trial court nor the high court ever found it to be a terrorist act.
The bench seemed not to be convinced by Gonsalves’s contention.
“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," the bench said.
With regard to contention on other premature releases, the bench said, “We don’t have the remission policy before us. Without it, how can we draw analogies?”
Gonsalves, for his part, then sought liberty to challenge the J&K remission policy within the ongoing proceedings.
After hearing submissions, the bench allowed Gonsalves to file an interim plea in a pending matter challenging the same policy.