Today, On 15th July, The Supreme Court refused to grant early release to a terror convict, stating, “If the act was committed to create fear, it carries the characteristics of a terrorist act,” and advised him to challenge the remission policy instead.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court refused to grant the early release of Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, a convict in a triple murder case allegedly connected to a terrorist act.
A bench consisting of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti permitted Bhat to contest the remission policy of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir by submitting an application in another ongoing case.
Bhat’s plea for premature release was based on the argument that he had already served 27 years in prison. Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves represented Bhat, while additional solicitor general K M Nataraj appeared for the union territory.
Bhat was accused of entering the home of an Army informer and using an AK-47 rifle to kill three individuals. The prosecution also claimed that explosive devices, including a grenade from an Under Barrel Grenade Launcher, were found at the scene.
Nataraj argued that killing civilians for allegedly providing information to the Army constituted a terrorist act, thereby disqualifying Bhat from receiving the benefits of early release.
He stated,
“The act was intended to create fear and deter cooperation with lawful authorities. This goes beyond a simple murder.”
The bench agreed with this argument, stating,
“If the act was committed to create fear, to ensure that no one dares to side with the law, then it certainly carries the characteristics of a terrorist act.”
They added,
“Even if TADA was not invoked during trial, that doesn’t automatically disentitle the court from assessing the true nature of the offence for the purposes of remission.”
In contrast, Gonsalves contended that Bhat was convicted only under Section 302 of the IPC (murder) and the Arms Act, without any anti-terror legislation like TADA being applied.
Referring to precedents involving similarly situated convicts who received early release, he noted,
“Nothing was proved in court to attract the provisions of TADA. The trial court or the high court never found it to be a terrorist act,”
The bench, however, remained skeptical, stating,
“We tentatively agree that the act appears aimed at sending a message that those who cooperate with authorities will face lethal consequences. We cannot turn a blind eye to such implications.”
When Bhat’s counsel cited other cases of premature release, the bench remarked on the lack of a comparable remission policy, asking,
“We don’t have the remission policy before us. Without it, how can we draw analogies?”
Gonsalves then requested permission to challenge the J&K remission policy within the current proceedings, and the bench allowed him to file an interim plea in a pending matter addressing that same policy.