Jammu & Kashmir: Kupwara Court Dismisses Bail Pleas of Eight Police Officials in Custodial Torture Case [Read Order]

Jammu: The Principal District and Sessions Judge, Kupwara, on December 8, 2025, dismissed the bail applications filed by eight police personnel, including a Deputy Superintendent of Police, who are accused in a high-profile case of illegal detention and brutal custodial torture of a police constable.

The case, stemming from FIR No. RC-048202550008, was registered by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (Criminal) Nos. 13751–13752 of 2023. The victim, Police Constable Khursheed Ahmed Chowhan, was allegedly subjected to physical torture at the Joint Interrogation Centre (JIC), Kupwara, between February 20, 2023, and February 26, 2023, under the pretext of investigating narcotics offences.

The accused officers—Aijaz Ahmad Naik (Dy. SP), Riyaz Ahmad Mir (Sub-Inspector), Jahangeer Ahmad Beigh (SPO), Mohd Younis Khan (Head Constable), Shakir Hussain Khoja (Sg. Constable), Tanveer Ahmad Malla (Head Constable), Altaf Hussain Bhat (Sg. Constable), and Shahnawaz Ahmad Deedad (Constable)—were arrested on August 20, 2025, and charged under Sections 120-B, 323, 325, 330, 331, and 343 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The core argument for bail, presented by the defence, centred on an alleged material change in circumstances, namely that the CBI had dropped the most serious charges—Sections 307 (Attempt to Murder) and 326 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons)—from the chargesheet filed on October 22, 2025. The defence contended that, with these sections dropped, the legal impediment to bail no longer subsisted and that the continued incarceration of the accused, who have served in the police department, violated their right to personal liberty.

The prosecution, represented by the Ld. PP, CBI, Mr. Zahoor Malik, vehemently opposed the bail pleas, citing the gravity and seriousness of the offence involving custodial torture and abuse of official power. The prosecution also raised apprehensions that the accused, being police officers, were in a position to tamper with evidence and threaten witnesses, thereby undermining public confidence in the police system. Evidence placed on record included medical reports confirming injuries consistent with physical assault, forensic material, and CCTV footage from the JIC, Kupwara, dated February 26, 2023, which showed the victim “limping while walking in the JIC Kupwara compound with restricted movement, corroborating the allegations of wrongful confinement and custodial torture.”

The Court, presided over by Manjeet Singh Manhas, J.O., dismissed both bail applications through a combined order, observing that the matter was at a premature stage and that no substantial change in circumstances had occurred.

Addressing the argument concerning the alleged change in charges, the Court held:

“The expression ‘change in circumstances’ postulates whether any further progress has occurred in the investigation, inquiry, or trial subsequent to the rejection of the earlier bail application. In the present case, the matter has only recently been committed to this Court, and this Court has yet to afford both sides the opportunity to advance arguments on the legal impact, if any, of the absence of sanction at this stage.”

The Court further observed that until a finding is arrived at on the issue of charge, the accused can be remanded to judicial custody pending a comprehensive hearing of both sides.

The Bench also addressed the defence plea for default bail on account of the alleged absence of sanction from the competent authority for prosecution, stating:

“The plea of default bail is untenable in law in view of the presentation of the challan within the statutory period, and no substantial change in circumstances has occurred subsequent to the rejection of their earlier bail applications.”

Concluding, the Court held that it was premature to delve into the merits or demerits of the case at this stage, and that the issues of charge framing, discharge, and the legal effect of the absence of sanction would be examined at the appropriate stages.

[Read Order]