SRINAGAR: The High Court of Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh has raised serious questions over procedural irregularities in a high-profile arms recovery case registered in 2019 at Lakhanpur, with the court taking note of what it described as a “very striking aspect” concerning the timing of the FIR and the alleged recovery of arms.
Hearing a bail application filed by accused Sabeel Ahmad Baba, Justice Rahul Bharti observed that FIR No. 0061/2019 of Police Station Lakhanpur had allegedly been registered at 8:30 am on September 12, 2019, whereas the interception of the truck and the alleged seizure of weapons took place later at 9:45 am the same day.
The court said this discrepancy was significant enough to warrant judicial scrutiny.
“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 case, truck No. JK-13E/2000 driven by Sabeel Ahmad Baba was intercepted by Police Station 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 persons, Ubaid-ul-Islam and Jahangir Ahmad Parray, were allegedly travelling in the vehicle and were taken into custody. During the investigation, two more accused, Bashir Ahmad Lone and Suhail Ahmad Dar, were also implicated.
A sixth accused, Ashiq Ahmad Nengroo, was shown as absconding.
The final police report filed in March 2020 booked the accused under 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.
However, the court noted another major irregularity, the original FIR was missing from the trial court record.
Justice Bharti observed that while the challan had been filed before the Special Judge, TADA/NIA, Jammu on March 9, 2020, the original FIR was not part of the final police report.
The court had earlier sought a report from the designated NIA court regarding the absence of the original FIR. 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 because of Covid-19 restrictions prevailing 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 FIR was never received, and only a copy was subsequently procured from the prosecution.
The High Court has now directed the prosecution to clarify whether the investigating officer, Dy SP Kamal Dev Bhagat, is still in service or has retired.
“In case, Dy SP is still in service then let him appear in person on next date of hearing,” the court directed.
The petitioner and two co-accused have remained in custody since September 12, 2019, and are presently undertrial prisoners.
Justice Bharti also asked petitioner’s counsel, Shivan Mahajan, to submit a 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 relates to one of the significant arms recovery investigations registered at Lakhanpur in 2019, a period when security agencies had intensified operations along the Jammu region following heightened militancy-related concerns after the abrogation of Article 370.
