SRINAGAR: Bringing to a close a legal battle spanning over a decade, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday dismissed a criminal appeal filed by the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir, affirming the acquittal of Gulzar Ahmad Bhat alias Peer and three others in an alleged rape case that had its origins in a 2013 First Information Report (FIR) lodged at Police Station Khansahib in Budgam. The judgment was delivered by a Bench comprising Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
The appeal arose out of the State’s challenge to concurrent verdicts by the Sessions Court and the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, both of which had cleared the accused of serious charges under Sections 376 (rape) and 109 (abetment) of the now-defunct Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), which governed criminal law in Jammu and Kashmir before the abrogation of Article 370.
The Sessions Court of Budgam, in its judgment dated February 12, 2015, in Sessions Case No. 142/S, acquitted respondents Nos 1, 3, 5, and 6, citing insufficient evidence to sustain the charges. The State’s appeal to the High Court was dismissed by a Division Bench on February 23, 2017, which found no infirmity in the trial court’s reasoning. Dissatisfied, the State escalated the matter to the apex court, where it was argued as Criminal Appeal No 1682 of 2017.
During the hearing, which took place in Court No 7 of the Supreme Court, Jammu and Kashmir was represented by advocates Parth Awasthi and Pradeep Baisoya, under the instructions of Advocate-on-Record (AOR) Pashupathi Nath Razdan. The State submitted that prosecution witnesses (PWs) 1 to 5 had provided consistent testimony establishing the culpability of the accused. The counsel argued that both the trial and High Courts had failed to give due weight to this evidence and had thereby committed a miscarriage of justice.
However, the respondents’ side, led by senior advocate S Nagamuthu and assisted by advocate Anupam Raina, with support from Shreyas Kaushal and Ankur Parihar, maintained that there were no inconsistencies in the lower court judgments that could justify the intervention of the Supreme Court. Nagamuthu strongly emphasised the high bar for appellate interference in acquittal cases, pointing out that the accused enjoy a “double presumption of innocence”, first as individuals on trial and second as persons acquitted by a court of law.
“The appellant-State has not been able to point out categorically any contradictions or lapses in the evidence or the judgments passed by the courts below,” the Bench observed in its written order. The justices made it clear that the prosecution had failed to highlight any material infirmities or legal errors in the concurrent findings of fact.
Justice Nagarathna, writing for the Bench, reiterated the judiciary’s established approach in such matters, noting, “We have closely perused the impugned judgment of the High Court, which has affirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Hence, we dismiss this appeal.”
In bolstering its reasoning, the Court relied on prior Supreme Court precedents, notably Yashwant and Others vs. State of Maharashtra [(2019) 18 SCC 571] and Rajesh Prasad vs. The State of Bihar and Another [(2022) 3 SCR 1046]. Both of these cases underscore the principle that appellate courts must tread cautiously while disturbing acquittals unless the conclusions reached are palpably unreasonable or perverse.
In a concise conclusion to the prolonged litigation, the Bench remarked: “The appellant-State has failed to make out a case for interference. There is no merit in this appeal.”
The judgment reiterates the foundational principle of Indian criminal jurisprudence, that an accused person is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and that acquittals, once rendered, are not to be overturned lightly.
Ear;ier, in a ruling on August 3, 2017, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld the preventive detention of Peer, under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978. The decision, delivered by Justice Tashi Rabstan, came months after Bhat was acquitted of rape charges in a widely-publicised criminal trial and amid persistent public protests in Budgam district following his release.
The court dismissed Bhat’s habeas corpus petition, ruling that the March 8, 2017, detention order issued by the District Magistrate of Budgam was legally valid and justified in light of the alleged threat Bhat posed to public peace and order.
Bhat’s legal troubles began in 2013 when he was arrested following allegations by four women from Khansahib, Budgam, who accused him of sexually exploiting them under the guise of spiritual healing. The police had alleged that Bhat, a faith healer, operated a network of sexual abuse masked as faith-based rituals. The accusations led to the registration of FIR No. 40/2013 under Sections 376 (rape) and 109 (abetment) of the Ranbir Penal Code.
However, the prosecution’s case unravelled during tthe rial. The Sessions Court of Budgam, in a judgment dated February 12, 2015, acquitted Bhat and his co-accused, citing significant evidentiary lapses, including delays in filing the FIR, contradictory witness statements, and the absence of forensic support. That acquittal was challenged by the Jammu and Kashmir State, but a Division Bench of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court upheld it on February 23, 2017.
Yet, the legal closure of the rape case did not end the State’s engagement with Bhat.
Following his release in 2015, Budgam district witnessed massive protests, including incidents of stone-pelting and shutdowns. The authorities cited these developments as evidence that Bhat’s continued presence in the area was inciting public disorder. In March 2015, the police attempted to execute a preventive bond under Section 107 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but the operation allegedly turned violent. Bhat and his supporters were accused of attacking police personnel, leading to FIR No. 15/2015 being registered against him under serious sections, including 307 (attempt to murder), 332 (assault on a public servant), and 427 (mischief).
Though Bhat was granted bail in March 2017 in connection with that FIR, he was immediately taken into preventive custody under the PSA by District Magistrate Budgam through Order No. DMB/PSA/2017/09.
Bhat, through his counsel Senior Advocate PN Raina, challenged the detention, arguing that it was “mala fide” and a direct affront to constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) of the Indian Constitution. He pointed out that the grounds of detention were vague and relied heavily on past allegations that had failed judicial scrutiny.
“The law is clear that preventive detention must be based on concrete anticipation of future threat, not speculative reliance on acquitted charges,” Raina argued, citing Powanammal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1999).
However, defending the State’s decision, Senior Additional Advocate General WS Nargal contended that the preventive action was rooted in Bhat’s sustained threat to public peace. “The acquittal in the rape case was on technical grounds, and the local population’s reaction underscores the moral gravity still attached to the case,” Nargal submitted. He cited the FIR of 2015 and Bhat’s alleged role in inciting violence as independent justification for detention.
Nargal further drew on precedents such as Debu Mahato v. State of West Bengal and Gautam Jain v. Union of India to assert that even a single prejudicial act can justify detention if it signals a continuing threat.
In a 14-page judgment, Justice Tashi Rabstan laid out the legal contours of preventive detention, making a clear distinction between it and punitive action. Quoting Haradhan Saha v. State of West Bengal (1975), the court held:
“Preventive detention is not punitive but precautionary. The power is based on a reasonable prognosis of a person’s conduct and not necessarily on the outcome of past prosecutions.”
On the core issue of whether a prior acquittal disqualifies the State from detaining a person under the PSA, the court was unequivocal: “The subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate, based on proximate and relevant material, is sufficient to invoke preventive detention. The court cannot sit in appeal over such satisfaction unless mala fide is established.”
The judgment also emphasised the balance between individual liberty and collective peace, noting: “While personal liberty is a cherished freedom, it must sometimes yield to the security of the State and maintenance of public order, especially in regions with a fragile peace like Kashmir.”
Justice Rabstan also found that procedural safeguards were followed, Bhat had been served detention materials in Kashmiri and Urdu and informed of his right to representation.
