SRINAGAR: The Jammu Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has directed the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Chadoora to provide Mohammad Aslam Raina with the relevant material used to describe him as a Pakistan-occupied Kashmir (POK)-trained militant in a police report, allowing him to examine the records and pursue an appropriate legal remedy.
The direction was passed by Justice Shahzad Azeem while disposing of a petition filed by Raina under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), seeking the quashing or expunging of certain remarks contained in a police report dated August 17, 2026.
In its order dated November 4, 2026, the court directed the SHO, Police Station Chadoora, to consider Raina’s application dated September 28, 2026, and furnish the relevant material to him as permissible under law.
The court observed that the remarks concerning Raina’s alleged militancy background and previous criminal cases were, prima facie, based on material and records maintained at Police Station Chadoora. However, the petitioner had categorically stated that the material had not been supplied to him despite his application seeking the relevant documents.
“In these circumstances, it is just and proper that the Petitioner be first supplied the relevant material forming the basis of the impugned remarks, so that he may examine the same and, thereafter, avail such remedy as may be available to him under law,” Justice Azeem observed.
The court made it clear that after receiving the material, Raina would be at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy in accordance with law.
The case originated from a complaint filed by respondent No. 4, Shafaat Ahmed Shah, under Section 175(3) of the BNSS before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chadoora, against Zia-ul-Haq Raina and others. The complaint sought the registration of a case and a fair investigation into alleged cognisable offences, including those allegedly involving the petitioner.
The Magistrate had sought a report from the police concerned, following which the SHO, Police Station Chadoora, submitted a report dated August 17, 2026, containing remarks about the petitioner’s alleged militancy background and previous criminal cases.
The police report described Mohammad Aslam Raina, son of Abdul Rehman Raina and a resident of Hussipora, Chadoora, Budgam, as a “Pak trained militant”.
It further stated that, according to police station records, he had allegedly travelled illegally to POK in 1991, returned the same year and remained affiliated with the Hizbul Mujahideen (HM) outfit. The report also claimed that he was arrested in 1992 and released in 1993.
The report additionally referred to two criminal cases registered against him at Police Station Chadoora, including FIR No. 141/2007 under Section 447-A of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), and FIR No. 26/2019 under Sections 341, 323, 447 and 506 RPC. It stated that he had been acquitted in the latter case on July 18, 2026, while referring to another case as still pending against him.
Challenging these remarks, the petitioner’s counsel, Irshad Rasheed, argued that the militancy-related observations and references to previous criminal cases had no connection with the allegations raised in the original complaint under Section 175(3) of the BNSS.
He submitted that the allegations were baseless and unwarranted and had far-reaching consequences, amounting to character assassination of the petitioner and his family.
The counsel further submitted that Raina had approached the SHO concerned through a formal application dated September 28, 2026, seeking the material on which the militancy-related allegations were based, but no response had been received.
Appearing for the respondents, Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh submitted that if the petitioner approached the concerned SHO, the entire material would be furnished to him in accordance with law.
After hearing both sides, the High Court disposed of the petition along with the connected application, directing the police to consider the petitioner’s request and provide the relevant records to the extent permissible under law.
However, the court clarified that its direction should not be interpreted as granting any protection from prosecution if the petitioner was found involved in any act of omission or commission warranting legal action.
“However, it is made clear that this direction shall not be construed as an immunity to the Petitioner, if found involved in any act of omission or commission calling for his prosecution,” the order stated.
Raina was represented by Advocate Irshad Rasheed, while Deputy Advocate General Bikramdeep Singh appeared for the Union Territory and other official respondents.
