Examiner News Desk | Srinagar:
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has raised serious concerns over alleged procedural irregularities in a high-profile arms recovery case registered at Lakhanpur in 2019, particularly questioning the sequence of events surrounding the registration of the FIR and the subsequent recovery of weapons.
Hearing a bail application filed by accused Sabeel Ahmad Baba, Justice Rahul Bharti observed that FIR No. 0061/2019 of Police Station Lakhanpur was shown to have been registered at 8:30 am on September 12, 2019, while the interception of the truck and the alleged seizure of arms reportedly took place later at 9:45 am on the same day.
Describing the discrepancy as a “very striking aspect” of the case, the court said it could not ignore the issue and deemed it necessary to take serious judicial cognizance.
“During the course of submissions of this case, one very striking aspect of the case, from which this Court is not able to distance itself from taking serious cognizance,” Justice Bharti observed in his order dated May 22, 2026.
According to the prosecution, truck No. JK-13E/2000, driven by Sabeel Ahmad Baba, was intercepted by police at Lakhanpur, leading to the alleged recovery of four AK-56 rifles, two AK-47 rifles, and six loaded magazines containing 30 rounds each.
Besides Baba, two other occupants of the vehicle—Ubaid-ul-Islam and Jahangir Ahmad Parray—were taken into custody. During the course of investigation, Bashir Ahmad Lone and Suhail Ahmad Dar were also named as accused, while a sixth accused, Ashiq Ahmad Nengroo, was declared absconding.
The final police report, filed in March 2020, invoked Sections 120-B and 201 of the Ranbir Penal Code, Sections 13, 18, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Sections 7 and 25 of the Arms Act.
The High Court also noted another significant irregularity—the absence of the original FIR from the trial court record.
Justice Bharti observed that although the challan was filed before the Special Judge, TADA/NIA, Jammu on March 9, 2020, the original FIR did not form part of the final police report. The court had earlier sought a report from the designated NIA court regarding the missing document.
In response, the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu informed the High Court that the challan had been presented at the residence of the Presiding Officer due to Covid-19 restrictions in force at the time. The report further stated that the original FIR had initially been submitted before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kathua, and was later requisitioned by the designated NIA court. However, the original document was never received, prompting the court to obtain a copy from the prosecution.
Taking note of these developments, the High Court directed the prosecution to clarify whether the investigating officer, Dy SP Kamal Dev Bhagat, remains in service or has retired.
“In case Dy SP is still in service, then let him appear in person on the next date of hearing,” the court directed.
The petitioner and two co-accused have remained in custody since September 12, 2019, and continue to be lodged as undertrial prisoners.
The court also directed counsel for the petitioner, Advocate Shivan Mahajan, to submit a detailed chronology of prosecution witnesses already examined and those yet to testify in the ongoing trial.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on June 5, 2026.
The case pertains to one of the major arms recovery investigations registered at Lakhanpur in 2019, a period marked by intensified security operations across the Jammu region amid heightened militancy concerns following the abrogation of Article 370.
