New Delhi, July 15: The Supreme Court on Monday refused to order Ghulam Mohammad Bhat a premature release, who was a convict in a triple murder case involving a terrorist act.
A bench, including Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Swan Bhatti, allowed Bhat to challenge the exemption policy of the center area of Jammu and Kashmir by filing an application in another pending case.
The bench heard Bhat’s petition for release on the grounds that he had sentenced 27 years in jail.
While senior advocate Colin Gonsalves Bhat appeared for Bhat, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj represented the Center area.
Bhat allegedly entered the residence of an army informer and set fire to the AK -47 rifle, killing three people.
The prosecution allegedly allegedly recovered explosive equipment, including the Bairael Grenade Launcher Grenade, who was allegedly recovered from the scene.
Nataraja presented the citizens killing citizens to provide information to the army for a terrorist Act and hence Bhat was decorated with the benefits of premature release.
He said, “The purpose of the Act was to prevent fear and cooperation with the officials of the law. It is beyond a simple murder,” he said.
Agreed with the controversy, the bench said, “If the Act was committed to creating fear, to ensure that no one dare the party with the law, it certainly carries the characteristics of a terrorist act.” The apex court continued, “Even though Tada was not implemented during the trial, it automatically does not separate the court from assessing the true nature of the crime for demonetisation purposes.” However, Gonsalves argued that Bhat was convicted only under Section 302 IPC (murder) and weapons Act, not under any anti -terrorism law.
He said, “Nothing was proved in the court to attract the provisions of TADA. The trial court or the High Court never found it a terrorist work,” he said, “He said, citing the example of the sitting convicts who were released prematurely.”
The bench remained unrelated and said, “We temporarily agree that the Act appears with the aim of sending a message that those who collaborate with the authorities will face fatal consequences. We cannot kill eyes for such implications.” When BHAT’s lawyer referred to cases of other time premature release, the bench noted the absence of a comparable discount policy.
“We do not have a discount policy in front of us. Without this, how can we draw up the metaphors?” Asked this.
Gonsalves demanded freedom to challenge the J&K Remission Policy within the ongoing proceedings.
The bench allowed him to file an interim petition in the pending case challenging the same policy. (Agencies)
