Bandipora: A local court on Monday rejected the bail plea of a former police driver for his involvement in a ‘fake encounter’ 16 years ago in northern Kashmir’s Bandipora district.
As per news agency—Kashmir News Observer (KNO), Principal Sessions Judge Bandipora Amit Sharma while rejecting the bail plea of accused police officer Faroooq Ahmad Padroo, said that bail cannot be granted to a person who has shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization.
The court observed that the accused persons involved in this FIR are none other than the police officers/officials and under the garb of the police uniform such type of “Fake encounter” was committed definitely shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization and the said crime committed by this accused person become more severe simply because of this reason.
Farooq Ahmad Padroo, a police driver is co-accused along with former SSP Ganderbal Hans Raj Parihar in an infamous fake encounter killing of a cloth merchant-Gh nabi Wani of Kokernag in 2006. Padroo is facing trial in cases FIR No.52/2006 police station Sumbal for commission of offences punishable under Sections 302 (murder), 364 (abduction), 120-B (criminal conspiracy), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), 344 (wrongful confinement) RPC .
The accused petitioner through his counsel Advocate Parvaiz Nazir had appealed for bail on the grounds that the accused is facing trial for more than 15 years and there is no chance for the conclusion of the trial in the near future. Petitioner pleaded that the long detention of the accused under trial prisoner developed various ailments including psychiatric disorder, with the result that the accused is not in a position to communicate and behave properly.
The petitioner prayed that it is old and falls within the exception of bail while the court has also granted bail to two other accused in the same case thus sought the same treatment. Counsel for the petitioners pleaded that he has got right to speedy trial enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, but in the instant case, the applicant has been deprived of the same, as none of his faults therefore indulgence of this court is imperative.
However the state on behalf of the victim’s family through Public Prosecutor Abdul Majid and Additional Public prosecutor Bilal Ahmad objected to the bail plea and prayed for rejection of the bail.
The Public Prosecutor pleaded that the entire evidence on record recorded during the proceedings of trial proves the involvement of the accused person in the offence of gruesome murder of an innocent individual of the soil. He pleaded that the offence is more heinous and more serious in nature because it has been committed by the persons who were supposed to uphold and implement the law of the land and were guidance and protectors of life and liberty of a common citizen.
Counsel for the victim family stated that the accused is involved in abduction of an innocent person and thereafter staging a drama of fake encounter and the accused persons thus turned to be beasts rather than protectors of life and liberty of those for whom they were appointed so as such, the above named accused is not entitled to the concession of bail.
“The offence is heinous and grave besides non-bailable in character, as such, the above named accused are not entitled to the concession of bail,” they pleaded.
The court rejected the plea of the accused petitioner and stated that the discussion and the evidence available on record of the file as well as taking into consideration the conduct of the accused and without commenting upon the merits of the case, this court is not inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
While rejecting the bail application of the accused, court stated that the accused persons involved in this FIR are none other than the police officers/officials and under the garb of the police uniform such type of “Fake encounter” was committed has shaken the basic faith and confidence of the common man in the working of the police organization and the said crime committed by this accused person become more severe simply because of this reason.
The court highlighted the plea of the counsel for the victim family that “the deceased killed in this encounter was actually the resident of the village of the accused and the said deceased who used to sell Dastarkhan sheets (dining cloth) on the Biscoe School pavements. It is from this place when he had been lifted by the police team. Thereafter he was kept in the SOG Camp at Manasbal and during these in between period the learned PP submitted that, “the wife of the said deceased approached the petitioner for tracing out her husband who was missing then and not returned to his house as the wife of the deceased never ever being the poor lady was having only the approach of the petitioner who was working as a police official and from the village of the said deceased. But the petitioner never bothered about the tears and cries of the wife of the deceased and cleverly carried forward the nefarious design and mode of committing this horrendous crime of murder”.
The judge added ‘meaning thereby any concession of bail either on medical grounds or on other grounds at this stage of the trial definitely shaken the spine of the common man in the present setup of the criminal justice system. “Hence the bail application moved by the accused person under Section 439 Cr.P.C rejected,” the court observed—(KNO)
